Patea v The Queen - [2010] NZCA 338

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA145/2010
[2010] NZCA 338
BETWEENSIALOFI NEE AH KEE PATEA

Appellant

ANDTHE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:20 July 2010

Court:O'Regan P, Panckhurst and MacKenzie JJ
Counsel:No appearance for Appellant

T Epati for Respondent

Judgment:30 July 2010 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by O’Regan P)
Background
[1]        On 3 March 2010, at the end of a jury trial at which Judge P A Moran presided, Ms Patea was convicted of assault with intent to injure under s 193 of the Crimes Act 1961. She now appeals that conviction.
[2]        The assault related to an incident outside her home in June 2009. The appellant was living with her partner, Mr Young, and her three children from a previous relationship.
[3]        The complainant is the ex-partner of Mr Young, and they have a child together. The complainant had custody and Mr Young had a “contact” arrangement whereby he saw his daughter weekly. At the time of the incident, the complainant was waiting outside the appellant’s property for her daughter to return from such a visit.
[4]        There was considerable animosity between the appellant and Mr Young on the one hand, and the complainant on the other. The complainant had been trespassed from the property and had two convictions for intentionally damaging the property.
[5]        The Crown case was that the complainant yelled out to Mr Young to stop the appellant’s daughter from throwing stones at her. The appellant then came out and an altercation ensued. The appellant punched the complainant in the face twice, splitting her lip open. The complainant then punched the appellant in the stomach. The appellant drove the complainant to the ground and banged her head on the concrete. An eyewitness gave evidence that the appellant slapped and punched the complainant between 15 and 20 times, threatening the eyewitness when she tried to phone police.
[6]        At trial, the appellant admitted that an assault occurred, but claimed she acted in self defence. She claimed that the complainant was the aggressor.
[7]        The appellant was found guilty and sentenced to 150 hours of community service.
Notice of Appeal
[8]        The appellant filed a notice of appeal on the 19 March 2009. In this notice, she set out the following grounds of appeal:
(a)That the Trial Judge misdirected and misguided the jury.
(b)That the defence counsel was grossly incompetent in failing to adequately put the defence of self defence to the jury, in particular, he failed to set out the circumstances as the appellant believed them to be.

(c) That the complainant has recommenced her behaviour.
(d)The gravity of the offence is countered by the appellant’s “absolute right to defend and protect her children and herself.”

[9] In that notice of appeal, the appellant also sought that the appeal be dealt with on the papers, as she did not want to have to travel to Wellington to appear. The appellant is self-represented. Her partner, Mr…

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 Patea v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Patea v The Queen [2010] NZCA 338
Case: [2010] NZCA 338
Decision Date: 30 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Patea appeals her conviction for assault with intent to injure. The conviction was the result of an altercation that occurred outside the appellant's home between her and the complainant, who is the ex-partner of the appellant's partner. The complainant had custody of the child of the appellant's partner, and was waiting outside the appellant's home for her to return from a visit. There was considerable animosity between the parties. The Crown case was that the appellant punched the complainant in the face twice, splitting her lip open. The complainant then punched the appellant in the stomach. The appellant drove the complainant to the ground and banged her head on the concrete. The appellant claimed she acted in self defence and that the complainant was the aggressor. The appellant was found guilty and sentenced to 150 hours of community service.

The issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge misdirected and misguided the jury, whether the defence counsel was grossly incompetent in failing to adequately put the defence of self defence to the jury, whether the complainant has recommenced her behaviour, and whether the gravity of the offence is countered by the appellant’s “absolute right to defend and protect her children and herself.” The Court found that the issue of self defence was clearly before the jury, and that the trial counsel did put the issue of self defence in issue and emphasised the need for the jury to consider the circumstances as the appellant believed them to be. The Court also found that the third ground of appeal, that the complainant has recommenced her behaviour, was not relevant to what happened at the trial. The Court noted that the appellant cannot complain about the entry of a conviction as she had been found guilty by a jury, and there was no appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The appellant is not represented by counsel and did not file written submissions. The Court considered the appeal on the basis of the material contained in the notice of appeal. The Crown counsel filed written submissions and was present in Court at the allocated hearing time. The Court did not call upon her to speak to her written submissions. Mr Young filed an email criticising the Crown submissions.

Orders