Peter Bonfert v The Queen - [2015] NZSC 69

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 36/2015
[2015] NZSC 69

BETWEEN	PETER BONFERT Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person M J Lillico for the Respondent
Judgment:	25 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Mr Bonfert applies for leave to appeal against a Court of Appeal decision dismissing his appeal against his conviction on two charges of male assaults female,[1] one charge of assault with a weapon (a chair) and one charge of threatening to kill.[2] The Court of Appeal allowed his sentence appeal.[3] Mr Bonfert also wishes to challenge the sentence now imposed.
[1]The jury were given an alternative on one of these charges of disabling by rendering the complainant unconscious under s 197 of the Crimes Act 1961 but convicted him on the male assaults female charge “for placing his hand around [the complainant’s] throat”.
[2]Bonfert v R [2012] NZCA 313 (Arnold, Potter and MacKenzie JJ) at [5]–[6].
[3]See [33]–[44].
Mr Bonfert’s application for leave to appeal is out of time by over two and a half years. His explanation for the delay is that he only received all the documents from the Court of Appeal a few months ago.

Background

The charges arose out of Mr Bonfert’s relationship with his former partner. It was alleged at trial that, during an argument on 10 January 2011, Mr Bonfert verbally abused the complainant, pushed her onto a couch, sat on her and threatened to punch her. After they moved to another room, Mr Bonfert put his hands around the complainant’s neck and she lost consciousness. In her police statement the complainant said that she woke to Mr Bonfert giving her mouth to mouth resuscitation.
On 13 January 2011, it was alleged that Mr Bonfert raised an office chair above his head and threatened to hit the complainant with it. He then threw the chair on to the floor, before picking up a kitchen knife and saying to the complainant “I could kill you” in German.

Submissions

Mr Bonfert submits that there were a number of mistakes in his trial, meaning that he was “unfairly judged”. He also submits that the proposed appeal raises important issues for all “expats” in New Zealand. As to sentence, he submits this should have been no longer than seven months.
In his submissions, Mr Bonfert says that he did not put his hands around the complainant’s neck on 10 January 2011. Rather, he submits that when he found her she had lost consciousness while intoxicated and while he was out of the room. He had found her not breathing and had given her “mouth to mouth”. Once resuscitated, she had refused his offer to call an ambulance. He says the complainant has a skin disease and bruises easily.
He also says that on 13 January 2011, there was no broken…

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 Peter Bonfert v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Peter Bonfert v The Queen [2015] NZSC 69
Case: [2015] NZSC 69
Decision Date: 25 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Peter Bonfert, the applicant, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence on charges including assault and threatening to kill, with his former partner being the complainant. The Court of Appeal had dismissed his appeal against conviction but allowed his appeal on sentence, reducing his sentence to 16 months imprisonment. Bonfert now sought leave to appeal against both the conviction and the sentence. The Court was required to determine whether the application for leave to appeal was within the allowable time frame and whether the proposed appeal met the criteria for leave under section 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.

The Court found that the application was significantly out of time, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay. Bonfert claimed that he had only recently received the necessary documents from the Court of Appeal, but this did not justify the significant delay in filing his application. The Court also concluded that the proposed appeal did not meet the criteria for leave. The conviction appeal sought to re-litigate matters that were already considered by the Court of Appeal and did not raise issues of general or public importance, nor did it suggest a risk of miscarriage of justice. The sentence appeal did not present any questions of law or sentencing principles and did not indicate a miscarriage of justice. The Court dismissed Bonfert's application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal.

The Court's decision was based on the untimeliness of the application and the lack of merit in the proposed grounds for appeal. The Court found no justification for the delay in filing the application and concluded that the proposed appeal did not meet the criteria for leave under the Supreme Court Act 2003. The Court did not grant leave to appeal, and as a result, Bonfert's application was dismissed.

Orders