Magee v Police - [2024] NZHC 1819

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2024-454-013

[2024] NZHC 1819

ASHLEY MAGEE

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 27 June 2024

Counsel:

M W Anderson and K J Paterson for Appellant A M Barham for Respondent

Judgment:

5 July 2024

JUDGMENT (REASONS) OF GRAU J

[Conviction appeal]

[1] Mr Magee was charged with assaulting his partner with intent to injure her. He was found guilty following a Judge-alone trial in the District Court at Levin on 21 September 2023. But the Judge found Mr Magee guilty of a different charge, of injuring with intent to injure. The Judge subsequently sentenced Mr Magee to five months’ community detention and six months’ supervision.

[2]Mr Magee appeals his conviction but not his sentence.

[3] At the appeal hearing, I allowed the appeal, quashed Mr Magee’s conviction, and made no order for a re-trial. These are my reasons.

MAGEE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 1819 [5 July 2024]

Background to the charge

[4] On 23 March 2023, the complainant fled from an address where she had been living with Mr Magee for a number of years as his partner. She had a swollen lip, a bleeding nose, and bruising to the side of her face. She drove to a neighbour’s address and told the neighbour that Mr Magee had hit her. Police were called and arrived to find her holding a blood-soaked tea towel to her face.

[5] Mr Magee was spoken to by Police and admitted arguing with the complainant and said she smashed a pot plant. Mr Magee was charged with assault with intent to injure under s 193 of the Crimes Act 1961.1

[6] At Mr Magee’s Judge-alone trial, the Judge heard from the complainant, two Police officers, and Mr Magee.2 In his evidence Mr Magee admitted to an argument but said the complainant came at him and he put his hands up. If he caused the complainant’s injuries, it was accidental because he was protecting himself. He denied that he had attacked the complainant.

Decision under appeal

[7] In a reserved decision dated 9 October 2023, the Judge began by summarising the allegations and Mr Magee’s defence. He then recorded that Mr Magee was charged with “injuring the complainant with intent to cause her injury”.3

[8] His Honour reminded himself of the burden and standard of proof. He set out the elements of the offence; that he must be sure that Mr Magee injured the complainant and intended to do so. He directed himself that he must be sure Mr Magee’s actions were not justifiable by self-defence or otherwise. He noted that there was no obligation for Mr Magee to give evidence, and that it was for the prosecution to disprove self-defence beyond reasonable doubt.4

1      Maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
2      The Notes of Evidence incorrectly record that Judge Rowe was the trial Judge. Judge Krebs was the trial Judge.
3      New Zealand Police v Ashley…

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 Magee v Police

Details

AGLC: Magee v Police [2024] NZHC 1819
Case: [2024] NZHC 1819
Decision Date: 5 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Ashley Magee appealed against his conviction for injuring his partner with intent to injure. The appeal was heard by Grau J, who allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and did not order a re-trial. The key legal issues were whether the Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence to the extent of a miscarriage of justice, or if a miscarriage of justice occurred for any reason. The court identified two significant errors: first, the Judge convicted Magee of injuring with intent to injure, which was a more serious charge than the one he faced; second, the Judge did not determine beyond reasonable doubt that Magee intended to injure the complainant. These errors rendered the trial unfair, leading to the conclusion that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The court considered it unnecessary to order a re-trial due to the extensive time Magee had already served, his age, lack of criminal history, and the minimal likelihood of a significant further penalty.

The court's reasoning focused on the procedural errors that had occurred during the trial. The conviction on a more serious charge than the one faced by Magee, and the failure to determine the necessary intent to injure, led to the conclusion that the trial was unfair. The court noted that such errors could potentially render a trial a nullity. However, the court decided not to order a re-trial due to the factors mentioned, including the time already served by Magee, the delay a re-trial would cause, and the minimal additional penalty likely to be imposed if Magee were to be re-convicted.

Orders