Matara v The Queen - [2015] NZCA 261

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA81/2014
[2015] NZCA 261

BETWEEN	BILLY MARK MATARA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	11 June 2015
Court:	Winkelmann, Andrews and Gilbert JJ
Counsel:	W C Pyke for Appellant J E L Carruthers for Respondent
Judgment:	18 June 2014 at 4 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ATime is extended for Mr Matara’s appeal to be brought.
BThe appeals against conviction are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Andrews J)

On 21 March 2012, after a trial in the Auckland District Court before Judge C J Field and a jury, Mr Billy Matara was convicted on one charge of converting a motor vehicle and one charge of aggravated robbery. On 21 February 2014, Mr Matara filed a notice of appeal against conviction. At the time, he was not legally represented.
The notice of appeal was filed approximately 21 months out of time, and Mr Matara seeks an extension of time to appeal. He explained the reasons for the delay in an affidavit affirmed on 10 February 2015. The Crown did not oppose an extension of time being given, other than on the merits of the appeal.

Background

On 21 November 2010, a Mazda car was stolen from a carpark at Auckland Hospital. The following day, the stolen car was used at around 10:15 am in the aggravated robbery of an antique shop on Dominion Road, Auckland. CCTV footage from the shop shows the car stopping outside the shop. Two men got out and went into the shop, while a third man remained in the car. One of the men who went into the shop had a stocky build, and had a balaclava covering his head. The other man had a thinner build and was wearing a hooded sweatshirt which partially covered his face. Both men were armed with knives. They robbed the shop assistant of jewellery valued at around $100,000. The three offenders left in the stolen car, which was abandoned in a nearby carpark.
Shamus Tamala pleaded guilty to charges of conversion and aggravated robbery. He was the thinner of the two men who entered the shop. Skip Eruera pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated robbery. He drove the stolen car. The police alleged that Mr Matara was the third offender. He denied any involvement, and the principal issue at trial was whether the Crown could prove the identity of the third offender as being Mr Matara, beyond reasonable doubt.

The case against Mr Matara

The Crown case against Mr Matara was circumstantial. It comprised evidence of text messages, cellphone tower data tracking the location of cellphones at particular times, the CCTV footage from the antique shop, the evidence of a witness (Mr Gul) as to seeing the offenders leave the shop, CCTV footage from Auckland Hospital shortly after the robbery, the fact that Mr Matara did not appear for a scheduled appearance at the North Shore District Court at 10:00 am on the day of the robbery but…

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 Matara v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Matara v The Queen [2015] NZCA 261
Case: [2015] NZCA 261
Decision Date: 18 June 2014 at 4 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Matara v The Queen was brought by Billy Mark Matara against his conviction for converting a motor vehicle and aggravated robbery. Matara was convicted in the Auckland District Court following a trial before Judge C J Field and a jury. The appeal to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was heard by Winkelmann, Andrews, and Gilbert JJ. Matara was represented by W C Pyke, and the Crown was represented by J E L Carruthers.

The legal issues in the appeal were whether the trial judge erred in not giving the jury adequate directions about the use of the CCTV footage from the antique shop and in not reminding the jury of the standard of proof required for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Matara's counsel argued that these alleged errors led to a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in not giving a "resemblance evidence" warning regarding the CCTV footage, as the Crown's case did not rely solely on the CCTV footage for identification, but rather on a combination of circumstantial evidence. The Court was also not persuaded that the judge erred in not reminding the jury of the standard of proof, as this had been adequately covered in the summing-up and the addresses of counsel. Consequently, the Court concluded that there had not been a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal against the conviction for conversion was not pursued by Matara's counsel and was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, as it was considered unlikely to succeed. However, the Court extended the time for Matara's appeal to be brought.

In conclusion, Matara's appeals against conviction on the charges of conversion and aggravated robbery were dismissed, but the time for bringing the appeal was extended.

Orders