Legal Research
Cases
Peryer v The King

Peryer v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 1481 6 June 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2024-441-1

[2024] NZHC 1481

BETWEEN
M J PERYER

Applicant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 5 June 2024

Appearances:

E J Forster and S B W Yee for Appellant M Mitchell for Respondent

Judgment:

6 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1] On 27 October 2023, Judge Earwaker convicted Michael Peryer of one charge of making a false statement1 and two charges of dishonestly using a document for pecuniary advantage2 after a judge alone trial.3

[2] The essential issue for the Judge was whether Mr Peryer had falsely claimed that two vehicles, a Ford Ranger registration LBB190 and a Premium brand horse float registration number 299U2, had been stolen. Mr Peryer had made insurance claims in respect of both vehicles. Mr Peryer now appeals the convictions, alleging that the Judge was wrong to find that the Crown had proved the claim to be false beyond a reasonable doubt.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 111; maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 228(1)(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      R v Peryer [2023] NZDC 22075.

PERYER v R [2024] NZHC 1481

What happened?

Alleged offending

[3] Mr Peryer is the director of a company that specialises in the transport of trailers, horse floats and caravans. He also runs another company which specialises in the transportation of pets.

[4] On 16 May 2022, Mr Peryer made a statement to police that the two vehicles stolen from his property at Hastings overnight between 12 and 13 May 2022 were:

(a)a Ford Ranger with registration LBB190 (the Ford Ranger); and

(b)a horse float with registration 299U2 (float 299U2), which Mr Peryer had purchased from Premium Floats in Christchurch on 12 April 2022 for $36,000.

[5] Mr Peryer claimed float 299U2 was attached to the Ford Ranger and both were stolen together.

[6] The Crown alleged that this statement was false because neither item was stolen. The Crown also alleges that Mr Peryer went on to wrongly lodge an insurance claim for both the Ford Ranger and float 299U2 on 17 May 2022, again under the pretence that they had been stolen. One charge of dishonestly using a document arises from lodging the claim in relation to the Ford Ranger and another arises from lodging the claim in relation to float 299U2.

[7] The Crown alleges that float 299U2 was not stolen, and that Mr Peryer instead re-registered float 299U2 under the registration 314G3 on 21 April 2022, removing any Premium Horse Floats branding that would identify it as such and replacing it with the branding of his pet transportation company.

[8]The Crown alleges that Mr Peryer’s Ford Ranger was not stolen because:

(a)the make of vehicle has a number of security features which make it extremely difficult to steal without a key; and

(b)Mr Peryer claimed he still possessed the single key he had been given for the vehicle when he purchased it, but Police investigations found that…

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 Peryer v The King

Details

AGLC: Peryer v The King [2024] NZHC 1481
Case: [2024] NZHC 1481
Decision Date: 6 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peryer appeals his convictions for making a false statement and dishonestly using a document for pecuniary advantage. He argues that the Judge was wrong to find that the Crown proved his claim that two vehicles had been stolen was false beyond a reasonable doubt. The central issue for the court was whether the prosecution adequately disclosed the evidence of Mr Mitchell, and whether the Judge erred in finding that float 314G3 was in fact float 299U2 based on the presence of double nuts on the D bolts securing the leaf springs of the trailer.

The court found that the prosecution adequately disclosed Mr Mitchell’s evidence. The written brief of evidence clearly identified that Mr Mitchell would rely on the physical features of float 314G3 in identifying it as a Premium Horse Float. Even if the prosecution breached their duty to disclose, the court found that the defence was not taken by surprise and therefore suffered no prejudice. The court also found that the prosecution did not breach their duty to disclose information they did not possess. Moreover, Mr Mitchell was not called as an expert witness, and even if he could be classified as one, the prosecution had no obligation to disclose expert evidence beyond the brief of evidence.

Regarding the Judge’s reliance on “double nutting” being a unique feature in finding that float 314G3 was in fact float 299U2, the court found that while the Judge misstated its significance, the presence of double nuts had a positive evidential value. The similarity of the features of float 314G3 to those present in float 299U2 was one of two strands of the Judge’s reasoning. The first reason he gave was that the narrative presented by Mr Peryer was implausible and lacked credibility, a finding which is not disputed on appeal.

The court concluded that there was no material error on the part of the Judge and no miscarriage of justice. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders