Manukau v Police - [2022] NZHC 1591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-404-000044

[2022] NZHC 1591

BETWEEN
TESSA MANUKAU

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 28 June 2022

Appearances:

Andrew Young on instructions from Jonathan Wiles for the Appellant

Robert McDonald for the Respondent

Judgment:

6 July 2022

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

[Appeal against conviction]

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 July 2022 at 3:00 pm.

Registrar / Deputy Registrar Date:

MANUKAU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 1591 [6 July 2022]

Introduction

[1] After a Judge-alone trial on 9 August 2021 at the Manukau District Court, Judge N R Webby found Ms Manukau guilty1 on one charge of receiving a stolen motor vehicle.2 On 21 January 2022, he sentenced Ms Manukau to 80 hours’ community work and ordered her to pay reparation of $400 to the victim.3

Ms Manukau now appeals against her conviction on the dual bases that:

(a)not all relevant information was disclosed to the trial Judge; and

(b)the Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence (both due to the undisclosed evidence and in terms of the evidence he did have at the trial).

[3] Ms Manukau accordingly seeks to admit the previously undisclosed information as fresh evidence on appeal. The Crown does not oppose the admission of the evidence, but opposes the appeal on its merits.

The offending and the evidence

[4] Just two witnesses gave evidence; both for the prosecution. Ms Manukau elected not to give evidence or call evidence.

[5] The evidence of the owner of the car, Mr Singh, was read by consent. He said that on 1 February 2021, while at his work in Ngatea, he noticed that his Mazda Demio was missing from its parking space outside. He reported it as stolen.

[6] The second witness was Constable Martel, who was one of the officers who stopped the car in Manukau. He gave evidence of the events in the early hours of 10 February 2021 when the car was stopped. He also conducted an electronically recorded interview (“EVI”) with the driver, Ms Manukau, an hour or so later.

1      Police v Manukau [2021] NZDC 25852.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 246. Maximum penalty depends on the value of property received, as set out in s 247.
3      Police v Manukau DC Manukau CRI-2021-092-1358, 21 January 2022.

[7] The stolen car came to the attention of the Police after it was picked up by an Automatic Number-Plate Recognition (“ANPR”) camera in Manukau. The APNR identified a car with number plates, GSL537, which had been reported as stolen.

[8] This information was relayed to the Police. Constable Martel, who was on duty in the area, identified a Mazda Demio bearing these registration plates travelling south towards Manurewa. The Police pulled the car over. Constable Martel saw a screwdriver stuck in the ignition. A glass quarter window at the rear was missing. The registration card on the windscreen was for a 2002 Toyota Gaia,…

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 Manukau v Police

Details

AGLC: Manukau v Police [2022] NZHC 1591
Case: [2022] NZHC 1591
Decision Date: 6 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Manukau appeals against her conviction for receiving a stolen motor vehicle, arguing that the trial Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence and failed to disclose all relevant information. The appeal is dismissed. Manukau was convicted after a Judge-alone trial in the Manukau District Court, where she was found guilty of receiving a stolen vehicle and sentenced to 80 hours of community work and ordered to pay reparation of $400. The basis of the appeal is that the Judge failed to properly assess the evidence, and that the Judge did not have all relevant information at the time of the trial. Manukau sought to introduce previously undisclosed information as fresh evidence on appeal. The Crown did not oppose the admission of the evidence but opposed the appeal on its merits. The new evidence comprised an interview of Manukau's brother, Mr Hadfield, by Constable Alex Turner. The evidence showed that Mr Hadfield had similar doubts about the car's legitimacy as his sister, Manukau. The Court found that the Judge was correct to reject Manukau's account on the question of recklessness, and that the new evidence did not change the conclusion that the evidence at trial provided a sufficient evidential foundation to reject Manukau's account. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Orders