Manoharan v R - [2015] NZCA 237

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA5/2013
[2015] NZCA 237

BETWEEN	DINESH KUMAR MANOHARAN Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	3 March 2015 (further submissions received 13 May 2015)
Court:	French, Asher and Williams JJ
Counsel:	C W J Stevenson for Appellant A Markham for Respondent
Judgment:	11 June 2015 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A An extension of time to appeal is granted.
BThe application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
CThe appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Introduction

Following trial in the Wellington District Court before Judge Davidson and a jury, Mr Manoharan was convicted of aggravated robbery with a firearm.
He was tried together with a Mr Gorinksi who was also convicted of the same offence.
Mr Manoharan now appeals his conviction.
The appeal was filed out of time but the delay was not significant and has not prejudiced the Crown. An extension of time is accordingly granted.

Factual background

At approximately 6.00 pm on 19 June 2011, three males disguised and armed with shotguns burst into the Silverstream home of an elderly couple Mr and Mrs Wiffen. The offenders tied Mr and Mrs Wiffen’s hands with black electrical cables and made them lie on the floor with their heads covered.
The intruders demanded cash and gold and forced Mrs Wiffen to open a safe which the couple had in their basement. In total the robbers took between $60,000–$70,000 in cash as well as jewellery and other valuables.
The day after the robbery, a barman at a Palmerston North bar witnessed suspicious behaviour by a group of four male patrons. One of the group had a thick stack of notes, and another wanted to change a large collection of coins, similar to that stolen from the Wiffens. The barman was able to identify Mr Gorinski as being part of the group. The barman also gave a description of an older man sitting in a Ford utility vehicle associated with the group. The description was consistent with Mr Manoharan and it was the Crown case that it was him.
Two days after the robbery (Tuesday 21 June) Mr Manoharan booked rooms for two nights for a group of people at a Lower Hutt motor lodge. He paid $540 in cash. CCTV footage captured Mr Manoharan, Mr Gorinski and several others as well as the same Ford utility and another vehicle, a Mazda which Mr Gorinski had stolen. Mr Manoharan was seen in the Mazda.
During the group’s stay at the motor lodge, Mr Gorinski purchased an Audi motor vehicle for $8,900 in cash.
On Thursday 23 June Mr Gorinski and others stayed at a Lower Hutt Holiday Park. Again the rooms were paid for in cash. Documentation linked to Mr Manoharan was discovered in one of the rooms as well as a receipt dated 21 June for some “Z nails” purchased from a Placemakers store in Levin. Z nails were later found in the Mazda driven…

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 Manoharan v R

Details

AGLC: Manoharan v R [2015] NZCA 237
Case: [2015] NZCA 237
Decision Date: 11 June 2015 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellant, Dinesh Kumar Manoharan, sought an extension of time to appeal his conviction for aggravated robbery with a firearm, which was granted. The appeal was based on several grounds, including the admission of fresh evidence, the failure to give an identification warning, the late disclosure of DNA evidence, the unfair presentation of DNA evidence, and the unreasonableness of the verdict. The court found that the fresh evidence from the co-accused, Mr Gorinski, was not credible or cogent and dismissed the application to adduce it. The court also found that no identification warning was necessary under the circumstances and dismissed the related ground of appeal. The court found that the late disclosure of DNA evidence, while unsatisfactory, was not a standalone ground of appeal, and that the DNA evidence was fairly presented to the jury, despite some shortcomings, and dismissed the related grounds of appeal. Finally, the court found that the verdict was not unreasonable, as the combined effect of the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. Therefore, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to grant an extension of time to appeal, dismiss the application to adduce fresh evidence, and dismiss the appeal against conviction.

Orders