Paranihi v Police - [2014] NZHC 1533

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-000318 [2014] NZHC 1533

BETWEEN
JAMIE LEE PARANIHI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 30 June 2014

Appearances:

S M Kilian and F J Hawkins for Appellant
A R Longdill and H J Musgrave for Respondent

Judgment:

3 July 2014

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 July 2014 at 10 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court
Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Kilian & Associates, Auckland
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

PARANIHI v NZ POLICE [2014] NZHC 1533 [3 July 2014]

Introduction

[1] Jamie Paranihi pleaded guilty to a charge of injuring with reckless disregard, driving with excess breath alcohol and having possession of a pipe for consumption of illegal drugs. On 6 May 2013 in the District Court at Auckland he was sentenced by Judge Gittos to six months community detention, placed on supervision for 12 months and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for nine
months.1

[2] Mr Paranihi now appeals against conviction on the grounds that at the time of the offending he was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961.

Background

[3] Mr Paranihi was the live-in caregiver for the victim of the assault, Mr Pearson. At the time Mr Pearson was a 67 year old male and needed daily medical care. On 6 October 2012 Mr Pearson and Mr Paranihi became involved in a heated argument over Mr Paranihi’s use of Mr Pearson’s car. Mr Paranihi punched Mr Pearson four times in the face causing a fracture to his eye socket. There was also excessive swelling, bleeding, and loss of vision. Mr Pearson fell to the ground. After calling the police Mr Pearson went and sat on a couch. Mr Paranihi continued to kick at his legs. When the police arrived and searched Mr Paranihi they located a glass pipe. As a result of the attack Mr Pearson lost part of the sight in his eye, which has not been restored.

[4] Mr Paranihi was charged for the offending against Mr Pearson and the possession of the glass pipe. He was before the District Court on 12 October and initially entered a not guilty plea.

[5] On 2 December 2012 Mr Paranihi was driving. When stopped at a checkpoint he was found to have an excess breath alcohol reading.

[6] On 27 March Mr Paranihi changed his plea to guilty on all counts. He was convicted and remanded until 6 May 2013 for sentence on this first set of offending.

1 New Zealand Police v Paranihi DC Auckland CRI-2012-004-016714, 6 May 2013.

[7] Following Mr Paranihi’s sentence on 6 May he allegedly offended again, starting on 16 July 2013, which resulted in him facing the following further charges in the District Court at Kaitaia:

(a) injuring with intent to injure; (b) possession of cannabis;
(c) possession of offensive weapon;

(d) possession of utensils for the consumption of methamphetamine; and

(e) driving…

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 Paranihi 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: [2014] NZHC 1533
Decision Date: 3 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jamie Paranihi appeals against his conviction for injuring with reckless disregard, driving with excess breath alcohol, and possession of a pipe for consumption of illegal drugs. He argues he was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 at the time of the offending. The District Court sentenced him to six months community detention, placed on supervision for 12 months, and disqualified him from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for nine months. The appeal depends on the Court admitting and accepting Dr Claassen’s evidence that at the time of the October 2012 offending Paranihi was insane. That evidence was not before the Court in May 2013 when Paranihi was sentenced. Dr Claassen only expressed an opinion about Paranihi’s sanity because he thought the October 2012 offending was still unresolved and before the Court at the time of his second report. It appears the October 2012 offending may have been referred to in the request from the Court to Dr Claassen because there was an application to cancel the sentence of community service for that offending. Whatever the reason, the evidence is before this Court. It is further evidence that was not before the District Court. The question is whether Dr Claassen’s evidence should be admitted on appeal. The principles to be applied by an appeal court when considering the admission of further evidence were stated by the Court of Appeal in its judgment in R v Bain and approved by the Privy Council in that case. The Court of Appeal said that it is only in exceptional cases where the interests of justice dictate intervening in that decision not to pursue an insanity defence that further evidence should be admitted at the hearing of the appeal. Where fitness to plead is not in issue it is only in exceptional cases where the interests of justice dictate intervening in that decision not to pursue an insanity defence, that further evidence should be admitted at the hearing of the appeal. The real issue on this appeal is whether it can be said that if the evidence had been before the Court it might reasonably be said to have led to a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. Does the evidence have the necessary “cogency”? Having considered Dr Claassen’s evidence and particularly the proper concessions he made in cross-examination, I am satisfied the evidence is not sufficiently cogent. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders