Langman v Police - [2022] NZHC 3209

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-404-220

[2022] NZHC 3209

BETWEEN
AARON LANGMAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 14 November 2022

Appearances:

S Pyke for Appellant

R E Budd for Respondent

Judgment:

2 December 2022

JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 December 2022 at 3:00 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland

LANGMAN v POLICE [2022] NZHC 3209 [2 December 2022]

Introduction

[1] Aaron Langman (the appellant) was charged with assault on a person in a family relationship.1 The complainant, N, is his former partner. At the conclusion of a Judge-alone trial in the Auckland District Court on 10 June 2022, Judge J D Large found the appellant guilty, and convicted him of the charge.2

[2] The appellant now appeals against his conviction. His grounds of appeal allege that:

(a)The Judge failed to take proper account of the complainant’s tendency to lie about a matter relevant to a fact in issue in the proceeding, or an attack on her veracity.

(b)The Judge erred in his finding that text messages and a screenshot sent to the appellant in April and May 2021 were of no relevance to the events occurring on 14 October 2020.

(c)The verdicts regarding the “kitchen” and “bedroom” assaults are inconsistent.

The alleged offending

[3] The alleged offending was summarised by the Judge in his decision delivered on 10 June 2022. He said:

[10] [N], in her evidence, said that the defendant had been drinking at work, had come home and was continuing to drink. Her evidence was that he had a bottle of red wine, a box of beers, and then was commencing on spirits. Her evidence was that she had gone to bed, and at about 11 o’clock or thereabouts she went to the kitchen to ask him if he was coming to bed, or if not to at least turn the music down. She said that at that point she was pushed to the floor by Mr Langman, and consequently bruised her knee. There was a photograph shown in evidence to the complainant, and she confirmed it was her right knee that had been bruised and that photograph was taken at that time.

[11] She then said she went to the bedroom and got into bed. The bed is a mattress on the floor, as opposed to a bed with a bed base as I understand her

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 194A.
2 New Zealand Police v Langman [2022] NZDC 10946.

evidence. She said that she was in bed and the defendant came in. He was standing to the side of her and then put all his weight on her, effectively falling onto her while she was in bed, initially on her feet, and then as she moved there were, on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Langman v Police

Details

AGLC: Langman v Police [2022] NZHC 3209
Case: [2022] NZHC 3209
Decision Date: 2 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aaron Langman (the appellant) was convicted in the Auckland District Court of assault on a person in a family relationship, a charge under section 194A of the Crimes Act 1961. The complainant, N, is his former partner. Langman appeals his conviction, alleging three errors by the trial Judge: (a) the Judge failed to take proper account of the complainant’s tendency to lie about a matter relevant to a fact in issue in the proceeding, or an attack on her veracity; (b) the Judge erred in his finding that text messages and a screenshot sent to the appellant in April and May 2021 were of no relevance to the events occurring on 14 October 2020; and (c) the verdicts regarding the “kitchen” and “bedroom” assaults are inconsistent. The appeal was dismissed. The Court considered that the evidence of the complainant in relation to the incident in the kitchen was credible and reliable and there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the complainant’s account of the incident in the kitchen was proved beyond reasonable doubt. While the complainant’s account of the incident in the bedroom was credible and plausible, the Court considered it appropriate to defer to the Judge’s assessment of the reliability of the complainant’s account of what happened in the bedroom. The Court was not satisfied that the high standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt had been reached in relation to the incident in the bedroom. The Court found no miscarriage of justice in the Judge’s decision.

Orders