Mathew Ngatai Te Moananui v The Queen - [2017] NZSC 93

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 42/2017
[2017] NZSC 93

BETWEEN	MATHEW NGATAI TE MOANANUI Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and OʼRegan JJ
Counsel:	M F Laracy and J W Griffiths for Applicant K S Grau for Respondent
Judgment:	20 June 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Te Moananui was convicted on one charge of assault with a weapon under s 202C(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. That section provides:
202C Assault with weapon
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who,—
…
(b) while assaulting any person, has any thing with him or her in circumstances that prima facie show an intention to use it as a weapon.
Mr Moananui’s appeal against his conviction was dismissed on 28 March 2017.[1] Mr Te Moananui seeks leave to appeal to this Court.

Background

[1]Te Moananui v R [2017] NZCA 88 (Wild, Simon France and Duffy JJ) [CA decision].

At the time of the offending Mr Te Moananui was serving a sentence at Rimutaka Prison. He refused to undergo a rub-down search before he went into an outside yard and so was ordered back to his cell. He returned towards his cell but refused to go inside it unless the corrections officer followed him in. An altercation followed. Mr Te Moananui reached into his track pants and pulled out an improvised metal weapon, commonly referred to as a shank.[2] Mr Te Moananui attempted to strike the corrections officer with the shank during attempts to restrain him and remove the shank from his possession.
[2]It was 32 centimetres in length, made from a round metal bar. One end had been sharpened to a point: CA decision, above n 1, at [2].
At trial Mr Te Moananui said that he had not intended to use the shank as a weapon. He had taken it from his pants only with the intention of distancing himself from the weapon.
The trial judge instructed the jury that, if they accepted Mr Te Moananui’s version of events, they could take it into account when assessing whether a reasonable observer would conclude that Mr Te Moananui intended to use the shank as a weapon. The trial judge said that the test was “not whether [Mr Te Moananui] in fact intended to use it” but “what a reasonable observer would at first sight conclude given what they saw and heard at the time”.

Court of Appeal decision

In the Court of Appeal, Mr Te Moananui argued that the words “prima facie” in s 202C(1)(b) should be read as transferring an evidential burden to the defendant to raise evidence of his or her actual subjective intent after the Crown has adduced evidence as to the prima facie circumstances objectively indicating that the defendant intended to use the object as a weapon. The Crown should then be required to prove an actual intention to use the weapon. He…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mathew Ngatai Te Moananui v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NZSC 93
Decision Date: 20 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Mathew Ngatai Te Moananui sought leave to appeal against his conviction for assault with a weapon, as per section 202C(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. The court, consisting of William Young, Glazebrook, and O'Regan JJ, heard arguments from counsel M F Laracy and J W Griffiths representing the applicant, and K S Grau for the respondent. The primary legal issue was the interpretation of section 202C(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, specifically whether it required proof of the defendant's actual subjective intent or could be satisfied by an objective test of prima facie circumstances. Mr Te Moananui argued that the statutory language should be read to shift the evidential burden to the defendant to demonstrate their actual intent, after the Crown has presented evidence of the objective circumstances. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal's interpretation, which held that the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of circumstances that prima facie show an intention to use the object as a weapon, was correct. The court considered that Mr Te Moananui's proposed interpretation involved an unwarranted manipulation of the statutory language and was inconsistent with the legislative scheme and purpose. Additionally, the court found that the interpretation did not affect the onus of proof on the Crown, and therefore, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act did not support Mr Te Moananui's argument.

The Supreme Court concluded that Mr Te Moananui's application did not demonstrate any risk that the Court of Appeal was incorrect in its interpretation of the provision or that there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. This decision reinforces the objective test for determining the defendant's intent under section 202C(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, and clarifies the legal framework for such cases in New Zealand.

Orders