Leighton v Police - [2018] NZHC 1319

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2018-443-6

[2018] NZHC 1319

BETWEEN
JONATHAN RICHMOND LEIGHTON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 29 May 2018

Counsel:

N P Bourke for Appellant G N Milne for Respondent

Judgment:

6 June 2018

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

[1] On 21 October 2017, the appellant, Mr Leighton, was arguing with his then fiancé, Ms Robson, in the back yard of their property. A neighbour called the police. On arrival, the police could hear the sounds of yelling from inside the house. When they knocked on the door, Mr Leighton’s mother answered and told them her son and his girlfriend were fighting. Ms Robson came to the door, assured the police everything was fine but said she and Mr Leighton were breaking up and she was leaving. When the police left, another neighbour approached them and said she had seen Mr Leighton assault Ms Robson. The police returned to the house, put the allegation to Mr Leighton, who denied it, and he was then arrested.

[2] Mr Leighton was convicted of one charge of common assault by a District Court Judge following a Judge alone trial.1 As well as the attending police officers,

1 Police v Leighton [2018] NZDC 6795; Crimes Act 1961, s 196, maximum sentence one year’s imprisonment.

LEIGHTON v POLICE [2018] NZHC 1319 [6 June 2018]

the prosecution called the neighbour who had approached the police, Ms Davis, to give evidence. They did not call Ms Robson.

[3] Mr Leighton now appeals his conviction on the basis the Judge drew impermissible inferences from the facts, the police erred in failing to call Ms Robson as a witness and the Judge’s approach resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Factual background

[4] Ms Davis gave evidence that, from her deck at the neighbouring property, she could hear yelling. She saw Mr Leighton leave the house and approach the shed in the back yard of his property. Ms Robson followed him, yelling. She heard Ms Robson say, “fuck off”, and saw Mr Leighton turn and punch Ms Robson in the side of the head with sufficient force to turn Ms Robson’s body. She saw Ms Robson walk away, telling Mr Leighton to “get fucked”.

[5] Constable Frearson spoke to Ms Davis after Ms Robson had told him things were fine. He described Ms Davis as appearing to be very concerned for Ms Robson and confident about what she saw.

[6] Constable Aim’s evidence was that Mr Leighton said he was upset, having returned home to find Ms Robson packing her bags and telling him she was breaking up with him. Constable Aim saw packed suitcases in the house. Ms Robson also told her they were breaking up. Constable Aim said Mr Leighton had wounds and fresh blood on his wrist, consistent with self-harm, and had been crying. Both he and Ms Robson delayed answering the door to the police.

[7] As the defence had…

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 Leighton v Police

Details

AGLC: Leighton v Police [2018] NZHC 1319
Case: [2018] NZHC 1319
Decision Date: 6 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Leighton v Police involved an appeal against the conviction of Mr Leighton for common assault, following a District Court Judge alone trial. The appellant argued that the Judge drew impermissible inferences from the facts, the police failed to call Ms Robson as a witness, and the Judge's approach resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The central issue was whether Mr Leighton had punched Ms Robson. Ms Davis, a neighbour, witnessed the incident from her deck and claimed Mr Leighton punched Ms Robson in the head. However, Ms Robson denied this occurred and gave evidence in support of the appellant. The District Court Judge concluded that the verbal argument between the parties escalated, and the appellant punched Ms Robson. The Judge relied on Ms Davis' evidence and rejected Ms Robson's version of events.

The court examined whether the Judge erred in assessing the evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the police breached their duty of fairness in failing to call Ms Robson as a witness, which was essential given her relevant evidence. Additionally, the Judge's assessment of the evidence was problematic, as she did not distinguish between credibility and reliability, and chose between competing narratives without sufficient justification. The court also expressed concerns about the use of evidence regarding Mr Leighton's alleged self-harm, given that the police officers who provided this evidence were not qualified to comment on mental health matters.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed, as the court found that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The court held that a fact-finder could not be sure of Mr Leighton's guilt given the evidence, and he should have been found not guilty.

Orders