Paul v Police - [2025] NZHC 2131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000519

[2025] NZHC 2131

BETWEEN
JONATHAN RANIERA PAUL

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 7 April 2025

Appearances:

D Nairn for the Appellant

A Al-Janabi for the Respondent

Judgment:

1 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDERSON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 August 2025 at 12.00 pm.

……………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

PAUL v POLICE [2025] NZHC 2131 [1 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] On 11 June 2024, Judge S Moala in the Manukau District Court found Mr Paul guilty on a charge of breaching a protection order (psychological abuse)1 and a charge of damaging a dwellinghouse with intent to intimidate.2 She sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment.3 Mr Paul appeals his convictions.4 He had already been released from custody by the time the appeal was heard.5

[2] Mr Paul advanced several grounds of appeal. I focus on the only ground that has merit.6 That is whether the Judge was in error in granting the police application to admit into evidence the complainant’s mobile video record (MVR) as a hearsay statement under s 18 of the Evidence Act 2006.7 This section provides for exceptions to the rule against hearsay to admit a hearsay statement where certain preconditions are met.

[3] The MVR statement was admitted on the day of the trial when the complainant did not attend to give evidence. The previously scheduled trial had been adjourned when the complainant was summonsed and appeared at Court, but left before the trial commenced, in circumstances I describe later.

[4] Without the complainant’s MVR, the Crown had insufficient evidence to prove the charges. The question on appeal is whether a miscarriage of justice has arisen by admission of the MVR.8

The charges and evidence

[5]The charges related to an incident at the complainant’s home.

1      Family Violence Act 2018, ss 9, 90(a), and 112(1)(a).
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 308(a).
3      New Zealand Police v Paul [2024] NZDC 17923 [conviction decision]; and New Zealand Police v Paul [2024] NZDC 13461 [sentencing decision]. The sentencing decision was given orally on 11 June 2024, but reasons for the conviction decision were delivered on 3 September 2024.
4      The appeal filed was against conviction and sentence but advanced only as to conviction.
5      The District Court file was not complete. A miscommunication led to the last of the District Court documents being provided to this Court on 24 July 2025.
6      The admissibility issue was first raised in oral argument. I permitted the appeal point to be advanced.
7      New Zealand Police v Paul [2024] NZDC 12009 [hearsay ruling].
8      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 232(2)(b) and (c).

[6] The complainant gave a detailed MVR to police when they responded to her 111 call. Mr Paul had been at her home address with her consent. The gist of the complainant’s statement, as summarised in the summary of facts, was that they had…

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 Paul v Police

Details

AGLC: Paul v Police [2025] NZHC 2131
Case: [2025] NZHC 2131
Decision Date: 1 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Paul v Police, the appellant, Jonathan Ranieria Paul, appeals against his convictions for breaching a protection order by committing psychological abuse and for damaging a dwellinghouse with intent to intimidate. The convictions were made by Judge S Moala in the Manukau District Court, which sentenced Mr Paul to four months' imprisonment. The only ground of appeal that has merit is whether the Judge erred in admitting the complainant's mobile video record (MVR) as a hearsay statement under s 18 of the Evidence Act 2006. The central issue is whether the Judge was correct to find that the complainant was unavailable to give evidence because she could not with reasonable diligence be found. The court examined the factual context in which the complainant had left the court premises before the trial commenced. Despite the police making repeated efforts to contact the complainant, they did not physically try to locate her at her known address. The court held that the police did not apply reasonable diligence in finding the complainant and thus, the Judge was in error in concluding that the complainant was unavailable. This led to the conclusion that the MVR statement should not have been admitted, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The court quashes Mr Paul's convictions for breaching a protection order and for damaging a dwellinghouse with intent to intimidate. Given that Mr Paul has already served his sentence and been released, the court declines to order a new trial as it would serve no purpose. Instead, the convictions are quashed, allowing the appeal.

Orders