Maanga v Police - [2016] NZHC 2571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-130

CRI-2016-404-131 [2016] NZHC 2571

BETWEEN
ESTHER RAWINA TE HIRERE MAANGI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 11 July 2016

Counsel:

D Schellenberg for Appellant M Harborow for Respondent

Judgment:

27 October 2016

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 October 2016 at 3.30 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors / Counsel:
DHP Schellenberg, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

MAANGI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2571 [27 October 2016]

[1] The appellant, Esther Maangi, was the subject of a hearing under s 9 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (“CP(MIP)A”) to determine her fitness to stand trial (“special hearing”). She is charged with unlawfully taking a Mazda motor vehicle, registration number DFG479 (“the Mazda”). At the conclusion of the special hearing, Judge Couch decided that the evidence against Ms Maangi was sufficient to establish that she had caused the act that forms the basis of the offence with which she is charged.1 She now appeals against that decision.

[2] This judgment follows an earlier judgment on separate issues that were also the subject of the s 9 hearing before Judge Couch. It should be read together with the earlier judgment.2

Facts

[3] The evidence for the prosecution was provided to the Court in the form of written police statements. The evidence of the owner of the Mazda was that on 23 April 2015, she had left it parked outside her home. She heard a noise which sounded like her car starting, checked a few moments later and found that it was gone.

[4] Sergeant Franklin gave evidence that on 23 April 2015 he learned the Mazda had been taken. Approximately 16 minutes after he gained this information, he saw the Mazda driving along Eskdale Road on the North Shore. The police helicopter was also searching the area. The officers in the helicopter advised him that they had located the Mazda at the intersection of Saffron Street and Lannigan Street, and it appeared there was no-one in the vehicle. Sergeant Franklin went to the area to secure the vehicle. He said that he stopped short of the Mazda, and directly in front of a walkway next to 28 Saffron Street. He looked along the walkway and saw a male and a female standing about 30 metres from his position. The male ran off. Sergeant Franklin directed a dog handler to the location where he saw the persons standing. He then moved to where the female was standing; he stated that he “requested her to stay where she was”. By way of explanation, the female stated that she had been having a

1 New Zealand Police v Maangi [2015] NZDC 18433.
2 Maangi v New Zealand Police [2016] HZHC 1930 [19 August 2016].

domestic with her sister’s partner. The female was subsequently identified as Ms Maangi.

[5] Sergeant Franklin noticed that the more he spoke with…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Maanga v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NZHC 2571
Decision Date: 27 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Esther Rawina Tere Herere Maangi appealed against a decision by Judge Couch that she had unlawfully taken a Mazda motor vehicle, registration number DFG479. The appeal was limited to the issue of whether the evidence against Ms Maangi was sufficient to establish that she had caused the act that forms the basis of the offence with which she was charged. Ms Maangi argued that her incriminating admissions were obtained in breach of her rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the rules set out in the Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning. The Court found that the Evidence Act was relevant to determining questions of admissibility in a special hearing. Although Section 30 of the Evidence Act governs the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence, the Court was satisfied that there was nothing unlawful in the oral exchange between Sergeant Franklin and Ms Maangi. There was no basis in that regard for finding that Ms Maangi’s confession was improperly obtained or that the exchange should be held inadmissible as evidence against Ms Maangi. The appeal against the decision of Judge Couch in relation to the unlawful taking of the Mazda motor vehicle was dismissed.

Orders