Peri v The Queen - [2015] NZHC 3099

`

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2015-063-001705 [2015] NZHC 3099

IN THE MATTER OF
an application pursuant to s 147 Criminal

Procedure Act 2011

BETWEEN

GRAEME PAUL PERI Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 8 December 2015

Appearances:

A M M Ives for Appellant
C H Macklin for Respondent

Judgment:

8 December 2015

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GILBERT J

Counsel/Solicitors:
A Ives, Barrister, Auckland
Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua

PERI v THE QUEEN [2015] NZHC 3099 [8 December 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mr Peri faces one charge of aggravated robbery:

That [he] (and Heta Lennod Lloyd) on 11 June 2015 at Murupara, being armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife, robbed Anthony James Rudolph of $80 cash.

Particulars

Aided HETA LENNOD LLOYD by following Anthony James Rudolph to ensure he did not seek help instead of withdrawing cash.

[2] Mr Peri applies to be discharged pursuant to s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence upon which a properly directed jury could reasonably convict him of this charge.

The Crown’s case

[3] The Crown’s case is that on 11 June 2015, Mr Lloyd drove to the rear of a block of shops in Murupara in Mr Rudolph’s car. Mr Peri was in the front passenger’s seat and Mr Rudolph was in the backseat. Mr Lloyd parked behind the shops, got out of the car, opened the back door and demanded that Mr Rudolph withdraw all his money. When Mr Rudolph protested that he needed the money for rent, Mr Lloyd punched him in the face. Mr Lloyd then obtained a knife from the front of the car, returned to where Mr Rudolph was seated and threatened to ram it into his head. He pressed the tip of the knife into Mr Rudolph’s chest, piercing his skin.

[4] Mr Lloyd then drove to the front of the shops where there was an ATM. He threatened Mr Rudolph and again demanded that he withdraw money. Mr Rudolph walked into the shop adjacent to the ATM. Occupants of the car parked next to Mr Rudolph’s car heard Mr Lloyd make the demand and saw Mr Rudolph walk towards the shop. They also heard Mr Lloyd tell Mr Peri to “go and check on that cunt, make sure he’s not calling the pigs”, or words to that effect. They then observed Mr Peri get out of the car and walk to the entrance of the shop.

[5] Mr Rudolph went to the counter and asked for a packet of cigarettes and

$100. When he got the money, he deliberately dropped $20 on the ground and

concealed it in his sock. He looked up and saw Mr Peri keeping watch over him at the entrance to…

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 Peri v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Peri v The Queen [2015] NZHC 3099
Case: [2015] NZHC 3099
Decision Date: 8 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, considered an application by Graeme Paul Peri for discharge from a charge of aggravated robbery, pursuant to section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The applicant, Peri, contended that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction. The court needed to determine whether the evidence was adequate for a properly directed jury to reasonably convict Peri of the crime. The legal issues involved the interpretation of section 66(1) of the Crimes Act 1961, particularly concerning the elements of party liability in aiding a principal offender.

The court examined the evidence to assess if Peri assisted the principal offender, Heta Lennod Lloyd, in the commission of the aggravated robbery. Peri's actions, including acting as a lookout and ensuring the victim did not call for help, were evaluated against the criteria established by the Supreme Court in Ashin v R. The court concluded that Peri's conduct provided effective assistance, regardless of whether the intended intervention by the lookout was necessary. The court found that Peri's awareness of the essential facts, including the use of a knife and the threats made by Lloyd, was evident from the circumstances. The applicant's submission that there was insufficient evidence to prove these elements was rejected.

As a result, the court dismissed Peri's application for discharge. The evidence was deemed sufficient for a properly directed jury to reasonably infer that Peri assisted Lloyd in the commission of the offence, with the necessary intent and knowledge of the essential facts.

Orders