Matika v Police - [2014] NZHC 1127

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2014-425-000019 [2014] NZHC 1127

JASMINE MATIKA

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 26 May 2014 (via audiovisual link to Christchurch)

Appearances:

G S Williamson for the Appellant
M-J Thomas for the Respondent

Judgment:

26 May 2014

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

Introduction

[1] This is in form an appeal against a decision declining bail after a witness was held in contempt of Court and sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment. For reasons which will become apparent, however, it is now an appeal against sentence and I will deal with it on that basis.

The facts

[2] Ms Matika was called as a witness in relation to charges of male assaults female and a further charge of intentional damage. These charges were laid against her partner. I have referred to her as a witness, but in fact she was also the complainant in the case.

[3] In brief, the police case was that a domestic dispute occurred on 25 August

2013. Ms Matika discovered some text messages on her partner’s phone and

MATIKA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 1127 [26 May 2014]

questioned him about them. She was tackled onto a bed, pinned and held on the bed, with the consequence that her breathing was affected. She was also punched to the head. Following this, she got into a motor vehicle, but was assaulted again and the car was damaged in the course of the struggle which ensued at that point.

[4] Turning to the events in Court, I have a description of what occurred in the decision of Judge Turner, who dealt with the matter last Friday afternoon, 23 May, and imposed the sentence for contempt. He said this:1

[3] When the case commenced the prosecutor called the first witness, … Ms Matika. She was sworn and gave her name and address. In answer to the very first question from the prosecutor, namely whether it was correct that she and the defendant had been in a relationship, the witness replied to the effect: Your Honour, I have had nine months to consider the matter and by reason of [my] Christian beliefs [I will] remain mute and not answer any questions. I then explained to her that whilst I appreciated her values she had a civic and legal obligation to answer questions directed to her by the prosecutor, defence counsel, or myself unless I decided the questions were irrelevant or for some other reason inappropriate. I explained to her that failing to answer questions would be considered contempt of Court which could render her liable to a term of imprisonment for up to three months. I asked her to reflect on her position and indicated I would stand the matter down to enable her to speak to a duty solicitor if she wished to do so.

[4] Ms Matika declined to respond to me despite various requests and it became clear to me that her decision to be mute extended to any questions…

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 Matika v Police

Details

AGLC: Matika v Police [2014] NZHC 1127
Case: [2014] NZHC 1127
Decision Date: 26 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Matika v Police involved an appeal against a decision to deny bail after the witness, Jasmine Matika, was held in contempt of court and sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment. The court heard the appeal on the basis of the sentence rather than the bail decision. Ms Matika was a witness in a case involving charges of male assaulting a female and intentional damage against her partner. During the trial, she refused to answer any questions, citing her Christian beliefs. Despite being informed of her legal obligation to answer questions, Ms Matika persisted in her refusal, leading to her being held in contempt of court and sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the sentence imposed was appropriate and whether the court had jurisdiction to revisit and reduce the sentence after Ms Matika provided evidence. The court found that the correct legal framework to address the situation was provided under section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which allows for a witness who refuses to give evidence to be detained for up to seven days. The court concluded that Ms Matika's actions, although technically in breach of section 365, fell under the more applicable section 165, which permits a maximum sentence of seven days.

The court's reasoning was that Ms Matika's refusal to give evidence was a straightforward case under section 165, and there were no aggravating factors in her conduct. The court allowed the appeal, quashed the balance of the sentence, and directed that Ms Matika be discharged immediately. The court emphasised that while there may be cases where a balance of the sentence should be served despite the witness later providing evidence, this was not such a case given Ms Matika's conduct and her status as a young mother.

Orders