MacDonald v The King - [2024] NZCA 287

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA455/2023
[2024] NZCA 287

BETWEEN	THOMAS WILLIAM MACDONALD Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	20 June 2024
Court:	Collins, Venning and van Bohemen JJ
Counsel:	R A Harrison for Appellant N J Wynne for Respondent
Judgment:	2 July 2024 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Collins J)

Introduction

Mr MacDonald was convicted by a jury in the District Court of a charge of aggravated robbery.[1] He appeals his conviction. In his notice of appeal, he set out two grounds: first, that Judge Barkle, the trial Judge, did not summarise the defence case; and secondly, that the Judge’s summing up implicitly dismissed the defence case.
[1]R v MacDonald [2023] NZDC 13058.
Mr Harrison accepted that the first ground of appeal is “without substance” and it was therefore not pursued. The second ground of appeal was the focus of the hearing before us.

Background

Mr MacDonald was charged with two other defendants, Ms France and Ms Filipo. They planned to lure the victim, Mr Hodson, to a remote location and rob him of his methamphetamine.
In the early hours of 27 February 2021, Ms France arranged to meet Mr Hodson in order to smoke methamphetamine in exchange for her providing Mr Hodson with sexual favours. The plan was that once Ms France was with Mr Hodson, she would text Mr MacDonald and Ms Filipo as to where she was and that the three would then rob Mr Hodson.
Mr Hodson picked Ms France up in his car and drove her to the Blenheim Rowing Club. She sent a text to Mr MacDonald telling him where she was. Mr MacDonald then drove Ms Filipo in Ms France’s car to the Rowing Club. When they got close to the Rowing Club, Ms France sent a text to Mr MacDonald that said “[i]t in his door walk up”. Mr MacDonald replied “[c]oming”. Ms France responded “[o]kay stealth”. Mr MacDonald’s response was “[g]et tits out we walking in”.
According to Mr Hodson, Mr MacDonald and Ms Filipo ran towards Mr Hodson’s car. Their faces were covered. The male attacker was holding a rifle. The assailants demanded Mr Hodson hand over his phone. The male attacker pointed the rifle at Mr Hodson’s feet which prompted him to hand over his phone. Mr Hodson then tried to get his wallet and car keys. Ms France, Ms Filipo and the male attacker then struggled with Mr Hodson to get his keys. He was struck in the head several times by the man with the rifle.
At about this stage, Mr MacDonald and Ms Filipo’s face covers fell off. Mr Hodson recognised them.
Mr Hodson said that he was knocked out and when he regained consciousness, he saw Mr MacDonald and Ms Filipo were trying to start his car. Ms France then pulled up in her car. Mr MacDonald and Ms…

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 MacDonald v The King

Details

AGLC: MacDonald v The King [2024] NZCA 287
Case: [2024] NZCA 287
Decision Date: 2 July 2024 at 3 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Thomas William MacDonald appealed his conviction for aggravated robbery. MacDonald's conviction arose from a planned robbery of Mr. Hodson, involving three individuals, including MacDonald. The trial judge, Judge Barkle, instructed the jury to consider various factors concerning the reliability of Mr. Hodson's identification of MacDonald. MacDonald argued that the judge's summing up improperly undermined his defence. The court needed to determine whether the summing up led to a miscarriage of justice or if the jury's verdict was unreasonable.

The court held that while the judge may have slightly mischaracterised the defence's reliance on the identification issues, this did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The judge's role was to ensure that all relevant considerations were properly assessed by the jury. The minor error did not affect the overall fairness of the trial. Furthermore, the court found that the judge adequately addressed other aspects of the defence case during the summing up, dismissing the appellant's other complaints.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, affirming the jury's decision. The judges found no grounds for a miscarriage of justice or an unreasonable verdict.

Orders