MacFarlane v Police - [2025] NZHC 1861

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2025-419-000014

[2025] NZHC 1861

BETWEEN
IAIN MICHAEL MACFARLANE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 9 July 2025

Appearances:

H Bell for Appellant

A S C Alcock for Respondent

Judgment:

9 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against conviction]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 9 July 2025 at 12.00 noon
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
H Bell, Hamilton
Hamilton Legal, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

MACFARLANE v POLICE [2025] NZHC 1861 [9 July 2025]

[1] Mr MacFarlane was charged with assaulting a person with whom he was in a family relationship.1 Following a defended hearing on 4 February 2025, Judge W Lawson found that charge proved beyond reasonable doubt.2

[2] Mr MacFarlane appeals against conviction. He contends that errors by the Judge in the assessment of the evidence have led to a miscarriage of justice.3

Approach

[3] It is common ground that this Court must make its own assessment as to the correctness of the Judge’s decision. However, Mr bears the onus of establishing the errors on which he relies to give rise to a miscarriage of justice.4 In assessing whether the trial Judge has erred in assessing the facts, an appellate court must take into account any advantage the trial Judge may have had for being able to see and hear the witnesses.5

Background

[4] At the time of the alleged offending, Mr MacFarlane was in a relationship with the complainant although they did not live together. On 13 July 2024, the complainant visited Mr MacFarlane’s address where her children were living. During the evening an argument occurred when Mr MacFarlane said that he was leaving the address to assist his son to deal with problems relating to his vehicle. A verbal altercation occurred within the house. Mr MacFarlane then removed himself from the scene by going to a garage, which was a short distance away from the house.

[5] The complainant subsequently followed him and continued the argument from the doorway leading into the garage. This escalated into a physical altercation that initially involved both Mr MacFarlane and the complainant pushing each other in and around the doorway. It culminated in Mr MacFarlane striking the complainant twice on the face with his fists. He used his left fist for the first blow and his right fist for the second. The complainant then left the garage and went back into the house, from

1      Crimes Act 1961. S 194A.
2      R v MacFarlane [2025] NZDC 5483.
3      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 232(2)(b).
4      Senna v R [2019] NZSC 55, [2019] 2 NZLR 68.
5      At [38]-[40].

where she called the police. When the police arrived, the complainant showed them CCTV footage taken from a camera that covered the doorway at which the altercation had occurred. Having viewed the footage, the police arrested Mr MacFarlane and transported him to the police station. At or about…

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 MacFarlane v Police

Details

AGLC: MacFarlane v Police [2025] NZHC 1861
Case: [2025] NZHC 1861
Decision Date: 9 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr. MacFarlane, appealed against his conviction for assaulting a person with whom he was in a family relationship. The District Court had found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and Mr. MacFarlane argued that errors in the assessment of the evidence by the trial Judge led to a miscarriage of justice. The appeal hinged on whether the trial Judge erred in his assessment of the facts, particularly regarding the availability of an alternative exit from the garage and the complainant’s alleged initial punch on Mr. MacFarlane.

The High Court assessed the evidence, considering the advantage the trial Judge had in seeing and hearing the witnesses. The Court found that the alternative exit from the garage was not material to the decision, as the Judge’s primary conclusion was that Mr. MacFarlane used more force than necessary. Additionally, the Court noted that the evidence did not support the defence's claim that the complainant had punched Mr. MacFarlane before he struck her. The complainant denied this in her testimony and the CCTV footage did not show any such incident. Thus, the Judge was not required to determine this issue.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The High Court upheld the District Court's decision, finding no material errors that warranted a reversal of the conviction. The Court concluded that the evidence sufficiently supported the findings of the trial Judge.

Orders