Matiaha v Police - [2021] NZHC 375

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2020-425-31

[2021] NZHC 375

BETWEEN
DONALD TEWHAIWHAIA MATIAHA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 4 March 2021

Appearances:

T J McCullum for Appellant R W Donnelly for Respondent

Judgment:

4 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 March 2021 at 4 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: .

MATIAHA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 375 [4 March 2021]

[1] Following a judge-alone trial before Judge Brandts-Giesen, the appellant, Donald Matiaha, was convicted on one charge of intimidation.1 He was ordered to pay $300 in emotional harm reparation. Mr Matiaha appeals against his conviction and sentence.

[2] Mr Matiaha filed his notice of appeal one day out of time. No prejudice arises to the respondent and, in the absence of opposition, leave to appeal out of time is granted.

Background

[3] On 22 March 2020 Mr Matiaha parked his vehicle outside the Work and Income office (WINZ) in Invercargill. Ms Jeannine Mander was employed as a security guard at WINZ. Because Mr Matiaha had previously caused issues at the office, Ms Mander was tasked with serving him with a trespass notice.

[4] Ms Mander approached Mr Matiaha’s car and served the notice on him through the window of his vehicle. She explained the notice and its general effect. Mr Matiaha responded with abuse. He said to Ms Mander, “You are a fucking bitch” and asked if she knew what she was doing. Mr Matiaha then said, “I will shut the fucking place down and be back to finish you all off”, or words to that effect.

[5] Ms Mander immediately went back to the WINZ office and followed the protocol that placed the building into lockdown. Mr Matiaha left before the police arrived. He was subsequently located at his house. He denied all knowledge of the incident.

District Court decision

[6] After outlining the circumstances that gave rise to the charge, the Judge canvassed the threat that had been made to Ms Mander. He noted that threats had been made against other Ministry offices in other parts of the country, including Ashburton some years ago.

1 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a).

[7] The Judge found Ms Mander to be a truthful witness and, based on her evidence, drew what he described as “the inevitable inference” that the words said were meant to frighten Ms Mander and were a threat to her and other staff members in the building. The Judge concluded the words “finish them off” were a threat that the victims could be killed or injured if he carried out the threat. Further, that the threat was a real one. The Judge found the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt .

The appeal

[8] Ms McCullum, who appeared on behalf of Mr Matiaha, submitted that a miscarriage of justice had occurred because the elements 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Matiaha v Police 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: [2021] NZHC 375
Decision Date: 4 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an appeal by Donald Matiaha against his conviction and sentence for intimidation under the Summary Offences Act 1981. Mr Matiaha was found to have threatened a security guard at the Work and Income office in Invercargill with a statement implying he would return to cause harm. The appeal was heard by Mander J, who reviewed the evidence and legal arguments presented. The key legal issues were whether the threat made by Mr Matiaha constituted an offence under the Act and if the District Court correctly assessed the evidence. The court examined the nature of the threat, Mr Matiaha's intent, and the security guard's reaction. It was determined that the threat was both credible and intended to frighten, satisfying the elements of the offence. The appeal against the sentence was also dismissed as the punishment was deemed appropriate given the circumstances and Mr Matiaha's criminal history.

The court found that the threat made by Mr Matiaha was both clear and intended to frighten Ms Mander, as evidenced by his words and the context of the incident. The court emphasized that the focus of the charge was on the intent of the person making the threat, rather than the actual fear experienced by the recipient. The District Court's conclusion that the elements of the offence were met was upheld, and the appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed. The court considered the nature of the threat, Mr Matiaha's previous conduct, and the security guard's response in reaching its decision. The sentence, which included an order for emotional harm reparation, was found to be appropriate and not excessive.

Orders