Makatea v The Queen - [2010] NZCA 50

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA594/2009
[2010] NZCA 50
BETWEENRAWIRI DAVID MATHEW MAKATEA

Appellant

ANDTHE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:24 February 2010

Court:Arnold, Harrison and Fogarty JJ
Counsel:J C Hannam for Appellant

P K Feltham for Respondent

Judgment:4 March 2010 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Harrison J)
Introduction
[1]        Mr Rawiri Makatea appeals against his conviction in the District Court at New Plymouth on 24 July 2009 following trial before a jury on charges of assault and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and reckless disregard.[1] He does not appeal against his sentence of seven and a half years’ imprisonment.
[1]      R v Makatea DC New Plymouth CRI-2008-043-294, 14 September 2009.
[2]        Mr Makatea's appeal against conviction is advanced on two grounds. He says that the trial Judge erred, first, in refusing leave to cross-examine the victim on his previous convictions for violence and, second, in refusing to allow Mr Makatea to raise the possible defence of self-defence.
Background
[3]        The relevant facts were not ultimately in dispute at trial. The victim, Mr Daniel Spittal, went with a small group to a friend's house in Waitara for a few drinks one evening in August 2008. He departed about an hour-and-a-half later but returned early the following morning after an argument with his partner. By that stage the gathering had grown to a party at which about 30 people were present. Among them was Mr Makatea.
[4]        Mr Makatea began acting in an aggressive manner towards Mr Spittal and others. He boasted that he represented a local gang. Mr Spittal spoke in favour of a competing entity. Differences on the merits of the two groups led to some physical pushing and shoving between the men. As a result, Mr Makatea was asked to leave the premises.
[5]        Mr Spittal has no memory of subsequent events. However, there were two eye-witnesses. One was Ms Merekahe Goodwin. She had fallen asleep on a couch at one stage during the party. She awoke to hear Mr Makatea calling Mr Spittal "a honky" and abusing him. He then punched Mr Spittal three or four times. Mr Spittal returned one punch.
[6]        Ms Goodwin next saw that Mr Spittal had Mr Makatea in a headlock (Mr Spittal is about 6' 6" tall; Mr Makatea about 5' 6" tall). Mr Makatea then picked up a beer bottle from the ground. Ms Goodwin heard smashing. She saw Mr Makatea using the broken bottle to stab Mr Spittal. In answer to a question from Mr Makatea's counsel, Mr Julian Hannam, she said the blows were "too many to count". She later agreed with him that Mr Makatea probably inflicted about "five separate cutting like injuries". Ms Goodwin suffered a cut eyelid when she attempted to intervene and disarm Mr Makatea.
[7]        Ms Goodwin acknowledged that she was heavily intoxicated. However, while Mr Hannam subjected her to extensive cross-examination, he did not attempt to…

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 Makatea v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Makatea v The Queen [2010] NZCA 50
Case: [2010] NZCA 50
Decision Date: 4 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal by Rawiri David Mathew Makatea against his conviction and sentence for assault and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and reckless disregard. The appeal was against his conviction only, not his sentence of seven and a half years’ imprisonment. Makatea's appeal was based on two grounds: the trial Judge's refusal to cross-examine the victim on his previous convictions for violence and the refusal to allow Makatea to raise the possible defence of self-defence.

The Court found that the trial Judge was correct in refusing leave to cross-examine the victim on his previous convictions. The Court held that the victim's previous convictions were irrelevant and unduly remote in time, place and circumstance from the subject charges. The Court also found that the trial Judge was correct in refusing to allow Makatea to raise the issue of self-defence before the jury. The Court held that there was no plausible or credible factual narrative upon which any of the three elements of self-defence might be available for consideration by the jury. The Court found that Makatea's actions went far beyond what was necessary to repel any perceived threat.

The Court dismissed Makatea's appeal against conviction. The final orders of the Court were that the appeal is dismissed.

Orders