Legal Research
Cases
Mason v R

Mason v R

Case [2010] NZSC 129 3 November 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 47/2010
[2010] NZSC 129
JAMES LOUIS MASON
v
THE QUEEN
Hearing:19 October 2010

Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ
Counsel:G J King for Appellant
D B Collins QC Solicitor-General and B L Orr for Crown

Judgment:3 November 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed.

B There will be no order for retrial.

REASONS
(Given by Blanchard J)
[1] Mr Mason was tried in the District Court at Christchurch on three counts of assaulting his two young sons aged four and two, arising from an incident which took place on the Bridge of Remembrance over the Avon River in Cashel Street. On two of the charges he was acquitted and no more need be said of them. The third count was as follows:
THE SAID CROWN SOLICITOR FURTHER CHARGES
That JAMES LOUIS MASON on 19 December 2007 at Christchurch assaulted [X], a child under the age of 14 years by pulling his ear and punching him

[2] Both the boys had been riding their bikes on the bridge and, immediately before the alleged assault or assaults, the younger son had lost control on a ramp leading from the bridge to a park and had come off his bike and injured his head. Mr Mason had then seen the older boy poised to ride down the same ramp. Evidence was given that Mr Mason had yanked the boy’s ear and punched him in the face. On Mr Mason’s account, he had grabbed “a great hunk” of the boy’s hair and pulled him towards himself. He denied doing more than that, apart from flicking his ear. In particular, he said that there had been no punching.
[3] Judge Crosbie directed the jury in relation to the third count that there was a “specific allegation” of the pulling of the child’s ear and a “separate allegation” of punching him. He said that the jury did not have to find that there was both the pulling of an ear and a punch:
You can find one or the other. It’s enough to accept that there was, either, the pulling of the ear or the punching if for the intention of application of force. [sic][1]
[1]The Court of Appeal thought it was likely that there was an error in transcription and that the words in the final portion of this passage were actually “with the intentional application of force” – Mason v R [2010] NZCA 170 at [9] per William Young P, Hammond and Baragwanath JJ.

[4] The Judge went on to say that if the jury accepted what two eyewitnesses said about a punch to the child’s face, and that it was an intentional application of force, the jury might have some difficulty seeing how that in any way could be to prevent or minimise harm. That was a reference to the new s 59 of the…

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 Mason v R

Details

AGLC: Mason v R [2010] NZSC 129
Case: [2010] NZSC 129
Decision Date: 3 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an appeal by James Louis Mason against his conviction for assaulting his son. The incident in question involved Mason allegedly assaulting his son by pulling his ear and punching him on a bridge in Christchurch. Mason was tried in the District Court and found guilty on one of the three counts, but acquitted on the other two. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction but Mason appealed further to the Supreme Court. The legal issues before the Supreme Court centred on the validity of the charge that combined two distinct acts of assault into a single count. The court held that separate counts should be used for distinct acts of offending to ensure fairness and clarity in the trial and sentencing process. The court found that the combined charge in this case prejudiced Mason’s defence and led to a miscarriage of justice, as the jury could have convicted Mason based on either act without unanimity on the specific act. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and determined there would be no retrial.

Orders