Pepperell v Police - [2016] NZHC 2654

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-485-70 [2016] NZHC 2654

BETWEEN
IAN JOHNATHAN CONRAD

PEPPERELL Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 27 September 2016

Counsel:

Appellant in person
H K Goodhew for Respondent

Judgment:

8 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is
12 pm on the 8th day of November 2016

PEPPERELL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2654 [8 November 2016]

[1] On 21 May 2013 Mr Pepperell was convicted on a charge of male assaults female following a defended hearing.1 The complainant was his former de facto partner, who is the mother of his children. On 20 June 2013, he was sentenced to
60 hours of community work. In the meantime, on 11 June 2013, a protection order was issued in favour of the complainant against Mr Pepperell by the Family Court.

[2] Mr Pepperell now seeks leave to appeal out of time against his conviction. He has completed his sentence.

District Court decision

[3] The facts alleged by the Police and accepted by Judge Hobbs were as follows. The complainant arrived at Mr Pepperell’s house to collect their two children. There was an argument. As the complainant walked away from the house with the children, Mr Pepperell pursued her. He grabbed her and pushed her up against a fence and put both hands on her neck. Evidence was given about this by the complainant herself, and also their daughter, who witnessed the incident. The daughter’s evidence in chief took the form of her evidential video interview. She was cross-examined via CCTV.

[4] Mr Pepperell, in his statement to the Police and again in Court, said that he was acting in self-defence. He said that the complainant lunged at him and looked like she was going to hit him so he grabbed her by both arms to stop her, and told her not to be such a smart arse. He said that he did not grab her neck.

[5] Counsel for Mr Pepperell argued that his daughter had been “brainwashed” by the complainant and was lying in her evidence. It was also said that she would not have been able to see what occurred due to where she was standing.

[6] The Judge found that there was no evidence of this and that the daughter was a compelling, coherent and honest witness. She gave a clear, unprompted account of the relevant events in her Police interview and was able to provide more detail when
pressed. The details were put to her in cross-examination. She accepted that she had

1 Police v Pepperell DC Wellington CRI-2013-085-426, 21 May 2013.

talked to her mother about the incident; it was expressly put to her in cross- examination that she did not see what had happened but she denied that. She spoke of both parents fondly.

[7] The Judge’s finding that the daughter had seen the initial push, then moved away, turned back and had seen Mr Pepperell with…

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 Pepperell v Police

Details

AGLC: Pepperell v Police [2016] NZHC 2654
Case: [2016] NZHC 2654
Decision Date: 8 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Ian Johnathan Conrad Pepperell sought leave to appeal out of time against his conviction for assault on his former de facto partner, the mother of his children. The appeal was against his conviction in the District Court and the sentence of 60 hours of community work. The court was required to determine whether the delay in seeking leave to appeal was justified and if the proposed appeal had merit. The key legal issues were the reason for the delay in appealing and whether the appeal had sufficient merit to warrant leave. The court considered that while Pepperell was not formally advised of his right to appeal, it was unlikely that he was unaware of the right given his education and intelligence. The court found that the primary motivation for the appeal was to challenge the protection order, not the conviction itself. The merits of the appeal were also assessed, focusing on the credibility of the evidence presented and the potential for counsel incompetence. The court concluded that the appeal did not have sufficient merit due to the strong evidence supporting the conviction and the difficulty in establishing trial counsel incompetence. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, confirming that the appeal was not justified on the grounds of delay or merit. The decision highlights the importance of understanding appeal rights and the rigorous standards for overturning trial court findings. The court emphasized that the delay in appealing was not sufficiently justified and that the proposed appeal did not have sufficient merit to warrant leave. The dismissal reinforces the principle that appeals must be based on compelling reasons and exceptional circumstances, and that the credibility of trial court findings must be given due deference.

Orders