Maangi v Police - [2016] NZHC 1930

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-130

CRI-2016-404-131 [2016] NZHC 1930

BETWEEN
ESTHER RAWINA TE HIRERE

MAANGI Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 11 July 2016

Appearances:

D Schellenberg for Appellant
M Harborow for Respondent

Judgment:

19 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 August 2016 at 4.30 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 1930 [19 August 2016]

[1] The appellant, Esther Maangi, faced 12 charges in the District Court. There was a hearing under s 9 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act
2003 (MIPA) to determine her fitness to stand trial.

[2] At a s 9 MIPA hearing the Court must be satisfied of a defendant’s involvement in the offences with which the defendant has been charged. This requires the Court to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the evidence against the defendant is sufficient to establish that the defendant caused the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence with which the defendant is charged.

[3] During the s 9 hearing Judge Couch gave a ruling granting the police leave to withdraw six of the charges. At the conclusion of the hearing the Judge found Ms Maangi was responsible for the acts and omissions which gave rise to four of the remaining charges. On the other two charges the Judge was not satisfied that the evidence reached the standard of proof required by s 9, and accordingly he dismissed them.

[4] Ms Maangi now appeals against the Judge’s decision to grant the police leave to withdraw six of the charges she faced, and against his decision that she was responsible for the acts and omissions which gave rise to one of the other charges. This judgment concerns the first of those issues. A second judgment will follow in due course regarding the second ground of appeal.

Appeal against leave to withdraw charges

[5] The appeal against the decision to grant leave to withdraw certain charges raises jurisdictional questions for determination in addition to requiring a merits assessment.

[6] Ms Maangi bases her appeal on s 296 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA):

296 Right of appeal

(1) This section applies if a person has been charged with an offence.

(2) The prosecutor or the defendant may, with the leave of the first appeal court, appeal under this subpart to that court on a question of law against a ruling by the trial court.

(3) The question of law in a first appeal under this subpart must arise—

(a) in proceedings that relate to or follow the determination of the charge; or

(b) in the determination of the charge (including, without limitation, a conviction, an acquittal, the dismissal of the charge under section
147, or a stay of prosecution).

(4) The question of law must not be one…

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 Maangi v Police

Details

AGLC: Maangi v Police [2016] NZHC 1930
Case: [2016] NZHC 1930
Decision Date: 19 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Esther Maangi, the appellant, faced twelve charges in the District Court, which included various offences such as driving while forbidden, dangerous driving, and burglary. The case revolved around a hearing under Section 9 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (MIPA) to determine her fitness to stand trial. The core legal issues in the case centred on the procedural propriety of the District Court's handling of the charges against Ms Maangi, particularly the decision to grant the police leave to withdraw six of the charges. The appellant argued that the court's decision to allow the withdrawal of charges, without making a final determination on the sufficiency of the evidence, was procedurally improper and amounted to an abuse of process.

The High Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation and application of Section 296 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA), which governs the right of appeal. The Court considered whether the question of law raised by the appellant fell within the scope of Section 296(3) of the CPA, which requires the question to relate to or follow the determination of a charge. The Court concluded that the refusal to make a final determination on the charges did not "relate to" or "follow the determination" of the charges in the way that Section 296(3) intended. Consequently, the Court found that the appeal did not meet the jurisdictional criteria for an appeal under Section 296 of the CPA.

In the final analysis, the Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The Court held that the procedural issues raised by Ms Maangi were best addressed through judicial review rather than an appeal under Section 296 of the CPA. Although the appeal was dismissed, the Court granted leave for Ms Maangi to bring the appeal, recognising the merits of her arguments.

Orders