Pora v The King
[2025] NZCA 255
•17 June 2025 at 11:30 am
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA716/2024 |
| BETWEEN | JOVAN AROHA ZACHARIAH PORA |
| AND | THE KING |
| Hearing: | 3 April 2025 |
Court: | Woolford, Brewer and Gault JJ |
Counsel: | V J Feyen and M A Edgar for Appellant |
Judgment: | 17 June 2025 at 11:30 am |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appeal is dismissed.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Brewer J)
Introduction
In the small hours of 26 December 2022, Mr Pora drove his car from his girlfriend’s family home (the house) onto State Highway 20. His girlfriend, Ms Rua‑Tuhou, was in the car also. About five minutes after leaving the address, Mr Pora lost control of his car and it crashed. Ms Rua‑Tuhou was killed.
Mr Pora was tried on charges of kidnapping Ms Rua‑Tuhou, her manslaughter and refusing an officer’s request for blood. The jury found him guilty of the kidnapping and refusing an officer’s request for blood charges and not guilty of the manslaughter.[1]
[1]Mr Pora had earlier pleaded guilty to one charge of driving while license revoked. Downs J sentenced Mr Pora to 12 months’ home detention on the kidnapping charge and disqualified him from driving for six months on the driving charges: R v Pora [2024] NZHC 2951 [sentencing notes].
Mr Pora now appeals his conviction on the charge of kidnapping. He submits that, having regard to the evidence, the jury’s verdict was unreasonable.[2]
[2]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 232(2)(a).
A verdict will be unreasonable if, having regard to all the evidence, the jury could not reasonably have been satisfied to the required standard that the defendant was guilty.[3] The test is whether the verdict reached was in fact reasonably available on the evidence, allowing for the fact that the weight given to individual pieces of evidence is essentially a jury function and that reasonable minds may disagree on matters of fact.[4]
[3]R v Owen [2007] NZSC 102, [2008] 2 NZLR 37 at [17].
[4]At [13].
The trial judge, Downs J, set out the elements of kidnapping, which the Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt, in a question trail which he provided to the jury. The jury’s task was to answer the questions having considered the relevant evidence. We reproduce that part of the question trail:
Charge 2: kidnapping (or unlawful taking away)
Are you sure:
1. Jovan Pora took Katelyn Rua‑Tuhou away?
If no, find Mr Pora not guilty of this charge.
If yes, go to question 2.
2. That taking away was unlawful?
If no, find Mr Pora not guilty of this charge.
If yes, go to question 3.
3. Ms Rua‑Tuhou did not consent to being taken away?
If no, find Mr Pora not guilty of this charge.
If yes, go to question 4.
4. Mr Pora knew Ms Rua‑Tuhou did not consent to being taken away?
If no, find Mr Pora not guilty of this charge.
If yes, go to question 5.
5. Mr Pora intended to confine Ms Rua‑Tuhou (while taking her away)?
If no, find Mr Pora not guilty of this charge.
If yes, find Mr Pora guilty of this charge and go to charge 1.
To take someone away means to remove the person from where they wish to be.
To intend to confine someone means to intend to control and hinder that person’s movements. It includes an intention to keep watch on a person, to preclude their ability to do as they wish.
In his summing up, the Judge took the jury through the question trail and explained each question. Then the Judge summarised the parties’ cases. The Judge did not know that it would be later argued on appeal that there was not enough evidence to convict Mr Pora of kidnapping, and, clearly, that was not a conclusion the Judge had reached himself having listened to all the evidence. We will quote the Judge’s remarks to give context to the appeal. First, the relevant portion addressing the Crown’s case:
[115] Alright, first the prosecution case. Mr Benson‑Pope began by acknowledging that the relationship between Mr Pora and Ms Rua‑Tuhou was at times loving and affectionate. But he also said it was tolerably clear that Mr Pora could be controlling and violence.
[116] Mr Benson‑Pope highlighted the incident in July 2022 when Mr Pora came home drunk and assaulted Ms Rua‑Tuhou. He reminded you of the messaging in which Ms Rua‑Tuhou sent a message saying that she was worried that he would kill her.
[117] Mr Benson‑Pope also reminded you of the evidence of Mr Vake. Mr Vake said that when alcohol was involved Mr Pora would go off at [Ms Rua‑Tuhou].
[118] Mr Benson‑Pope said it is also clear that there were occasions in which Ms Rua‑Tuhou would avoid, or attempt to avoid, Mr Pora because she was frightened of him, and he said that there were examples in the messaging. He reminded you of one on the 19th of August 2022 in which the messaging referred to Mr Pora being too aggressive. And he reminded you of another message on 5 December 2022 in the early hours of the morning in which Mr Pora sent a message to Ms Rua‑Tuhou saying essentially that things would not end well for her.
[119] Ms Rua‑Tuhou told the doctor about some violence between her, and her partner and she saw that doctor in August 2022.
[120] Mr Benson‑Pope said that there were periods of reconciliation between the couple, but the outstanding thing about the feature of the relationship is this: it was at best volatile. And the Crown case essentially is that these events culminated in the early hours of Boxing Day 2022—a volatile relationship put under profound stress by virtue of Mr Pora learning about alleged flirtatious behaviour on the part of Ms Rua‑Tuhou.
[121] Mr Benson‑Pope spoke about that sequence — I will not remind you of everything he said or the related evidence — but you will remember that there was concern expressed that Mr Pora might be angry when he learned about this. There is then evidence about what happened while everyone is drinking at Ōtara. Mr Benson‑Pope reminded you of the evidence that Mr Pora described Ms Rua‑Tuhou as an “evil bitch”. He noted that the term “bitch” was one that Mr Pora seemed to have employed with some regularity.
[122] He also reminded you of the evidence from at least one person present that Mr Pora was sculling bottles in three or four mouthfuls and drinking very fast. He reminded you of other evidence that Mr Pora seemed angry and that the mood had changed.
[123] Mr Benson‑Pope then turned to Ms Rua‑Tuhou’s situation. She plainly had a lot to drink, and she had also smoked cannabis. The video that was at approximately 1.30 that morning made by her father on his phone, showed her in a way that dovetailed with messaging from one of the messages that she was “out of it”. Mr Benson‑Pope noted that she did not appear in any way aggressive or obnoxious or difficult.
[124] He noted too that Ms Rua‑Tuhou had been wanting to see Jovan, she had tried to contact him repeatedly throughout the evening, and he said it is apparent when you stand back and look at those sequences of messages and missed calls that Mr Pora was ignoring her. He said that spoke volumes about Mr Pora’s state of mind.
[125] Mr Benson‑Pope then reminded you of the sequence that began at 2.24 in the morning when Mr Pora leaves Ōtara, and when he arrives at [the house] there is an argument with the father and it is clear that Mr Pora uses the term “bitch” in relation to Ms Rua‑Tuhou.
[126] Mr Benson‑Pope also reminded you that Tanisha Hohipa is inside the car for a time, and he said look, is it any coincidence that she overhears Mr Pora referring to “sleeping with the homie” which could only be a reference to alleged infidelity or flirtatious behaviour. Mr Benson‑Pope said that Mr Pora acknowledged, or came close to acknowledging, when he spoke to Detective Kirkman that there was this very personal conversation in the car in which he was upset.
[127] Mr Benson‑Pope then turned to surrounding evidence: the horn beeping; family hearing screaming from inside. He said you have got detailed eyewitness testimony about what happens when they come outside. It is graphic. It could not be mistaken. It could not be misinterpreted. The prosecution case is that they cannot possibly be referring to the car rolling down the driveway or Ms Rua‑Tuhou perhaps accidently falling out of the car or anything like that.
[128] Mr Benson‑Pope said essentially you have got a mountain of evidence about what is going on at that time – all of it incriminating. That included, of course, what the neighbours heard and this nasty aggressive behaviour by a male towards a female.
[129] Mr Benson‑Pope later added that a pink bra was found in the footwell of the car. He asked whether it was any coincidence that it had been damaged recently and noted it was entirely consistent with a struggle in the car and Mr Pora not allowing Ms Rua‑Tuhou to get out and stay where she wished to be.
[130] Mr Benson‑Pope stressed that all this was a short scene; from the crash scene it is only a five‑minute drive. He reminded you that there is what the Crown says is the swerve sequence on Roscommon Drive, which he says is consistent with a struggle inside the car; there is the hazard lights on the motorway; and Mr Benson‑Pope said look if Mr Pora is really concerned about Ms Rua‑Tuhou in the car, why on earth does he not just stop and pull over and the fact that he does not speaks volumes as to what his intention was and what was going on at the time.
[131] Mr Benson‑Pope then spoke briefly about what Mr Pora said at the motorway. He acknowledged that Mr Pora would necessarily have been in a very distressed, heightened emotional state. But he said despite that, what he said is of importance. Mr Pora is saying things like “I’m sorry for arguing”, “I’m sorry for being mad”, “Take me to the cells”, consistent on the prosecution case with this being circumstantial evidence of guilt.
Second, the relevant portion addressing the defence case:
[135] Ms Feyen said you have heard a variety of scenarios put forward by the prosecution and frankly none of them stack up; you will appreciate I am using different language.
[136] Ms Feyen said look one of the pictures that is painted is that [Ms Rua‑Tuhou] is going to break‑up with Jovan. She said that is not supported by any of the text messaging or any other evidence.
[137] She then said another scenario is that Jovan Pora is intent on confronting Ms Rua‑Tuhou about her allegedly flirtatious behaviour, but she said that is a misunderstanding or misconception of the evidence when you look at it carefully. She said when you look at the evidence in the round, Mr Pora was upset and angry earlier, but his mood seems to have calmed down.
[138] She said Mr Vake ultimately accepted that proposition in cross‑examination. She said Mr Vake’s evidence about the relationship and its nature had to be treated with particular care that is because Mr Vake really only knows Mr Pora through Mr Mau and Mr Vake has not had a meaningful opportunity to examine their relationship. She reminded you that Mr Vake accepted in cross‑examination that the first time he drank with the couple was that Christmas Eve. Ms Feyen said to you look, Mr Vake hardly knew them as a couple.
[139] Ms Feyen said that you should conclude, and the facts are clear, that Mr Pora left Ōtara that night, that he was going to take Ms Rua‑Tuhou back to his family home where she was safe and then he was going to go on drinking, that nothing more sinister was in his intention.
[140] Ms Feyen reminded you that Ms Rua‑Tuhou was volatile while intoxicated. She said she was obviously highly intoxicated that morning.
[141] Ms Feyen then talked a little more about what happened at [the house]. She said that the evidence shows that Ms Rua‑Tuhou had gone in and out of the car at [the house] and that is consistent with Mr Pora’s version of events. She said the fact that Tanisha was in the car is also consistent with Mr Pora’s testimony. She said that only two Crown witnesses heard a car horn and it is curious that none of the neighbours did, that tells you volumes about where the truth lies.
[142] Ms Feyen said that there was no kidnapping, no taking away. All that has happened is that people have misinterpreted what has gone on. Tanisha is trying to get Ms Rua‑Tuhou out of the car. It looks as though she is going to fall out and Mr Pora has done no more than to stop her falling out, or something like that.
[143] Ms Feyen said the 111 call reflects this misunderstanding of events. Ms Feyen said look it is clear that the evidence underlying that call is unreliable. She said it is plain that there was no machete or a large knife, and yet that was what was described.
[144] Ms Feyen reminds you that Tanisha Hohipa acknowledged that she herself was “wasted” that morning. Ms Feyen said it therefore follows that the kidnapping or unlawful taking away charge had to fail. It is not a situation in which Mr Pora has unlawfully taken Ms Rua‑Tuhou away. Rather, there is at very least a reasonable possibility that the events were as he described.
[145] Ms Feyen then talked briefly about the car trip and what that implied in terms of your verdicts. She said that when Ms Rua‑Tuhou left [the house] she was wearing a bra and underpants, and possibly a black top. And yet that was not the [precise] clothing that she was found in. Ms Feyen said, look, it is open to you to infer that she has changed her clothing en route and that is inconsistent with an allegation of ongoing detention, ongoing threats of violence or mayhem inside the car. Ms Feyen said that is supported by the fact that there is an open can of Woodstock in the car.
[146] Ms Feyen reminded you that the defence crash analyst, Mr Williams, said there was no evidence of bad driving or poor driving, and that was important as to what was going on inside the car, and as to Mr Pora’s mindset more generally.
[147] Ms Feyen said, look, if what had been going on in the car was anything like that alleged by the Crown, Ms Rua‑Tuhou could have got out at Gull. She was familiar with that area. There was grass there. It was a well‑attended place that Ms Rua‑Tuhou was familiar with.
[148] Ms Feyen placed emphasis on the evidence of Ms Rua‑Tuhou’s intoxication and how she has attempted to jump out of cars in the past, twice. Ms Feyen stressed the importance of that evidence and its significance to your verdicts. She reminded you that Ms Rua‑Tuhou had 225 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. There was also cannabis in her system. And she reminded you of how alcohol and cannabis combine to make the effects greater.
[149] Ms Feyen said that Mr Pora found himself in a very difficult situation. He was taking home someone that was drunk; someone who struggles to control themselves when they have been drinking; and that therefore this is not a situation in which he has done anything wrong either before Ms Rua‑Tuhou getting into the car or during the car ride. She noted that Ms Rua‑Tuhou told Dr Harrison she had an alcohol problem.
[150] Ms Feyen reminded you that Mr Williams, the crash expert on behalf of Mr Pora, considered that the passenger door was closed as the car was heading towards the median barrier. She said that is important for you to consider.
The appeal
Ms Feyen, for Mr Pora, now submits that there is insufficient evidence to prove there was an unlawful taking, or that the taking was done without the victim’s consent and Mr Pora knew there was no consent, or that Mr Pora intended Ms Rua‑Tuhou to be confined.
Put into context, Ms Feyen submits that the inconsistencies in the evidence of the Crown’s witnesses mean the jury should have been unsure about whether Ms Rua‑Tuhou left the address in the car against her will, and with Mr Pora knowing that but intending to keep her confined. Ms Feyen adds that Ms Rua‑Tuhou was so intoxicated at the time that it is impossible to be sure of her state of mind. Further, the entire incident took five minutes and that is too short a period to constitute kidnapping.
Discussion
There is nothing of substance in this appeal. The jury was properly directed on the issues it had to decide. As the quoted portions of the Judge’s summation make clear, there was evidence which, if accepted by the jury, entitled it to find that the physical and mental elements of the charge of kidnapping were proved. We accept that there were also inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses, and possible alternative inferences which might be drawn from the evidence. The Judge’s summary of the defence case makes that clear. But, it is a jury’s function to sift through evidence, to judge the reliability of witnesses and to decide what it can be sure of.
Where an appeal is brought on the ground of unreasonable verdict, the appellate court does not review the evidence and decide what verdict it thinks is reasonable.[5] The appellate court’s role is to decide whether the jury’s verdict was reasonably available to it, given that it is for the jury to decide what evidence it accepts and what weight should be given to individual pieces of evidence.[6] This makes for a high threshold between an appellant and a finding of an unreasonable verdict.
[5]R v Owen, above n 3, at [13(a) and (f)].
[6]At [13(b), (c) and (e)].
Ms Feyen’s submissions on appeal are all directed at inferences the jury might have drawn but did not. We accept that had the jury drawn the inferences Ms Feyen submits it should have drawn then the result would have been an acquittal. But the test is whether it was unreasonable for the jury, on the evidence before it, not to draw the inferences.
We will not dissect the evidence in detail. The background is given in the quoted portions of the Judge’s summation at [6]. We will, instead, concentrate on the evidence of witnesses who saw Mr Pora and Ms Rua‑Tuhou in the car at the house. We accept as accurate the Crown’s summaries of the witnesses’ evidence:[7]
[7]Footnotes omitted.
Koroni Tuhou
4.2The deceased’s father, Koroni Tuhou, was the first witness to give evidence for the Crown. He gave background evidence about the deceased and the appellant’s relationship — and how the family became involved after the appellant physically assaulted the deceased in July 2022.
4.3He gave evidence that he was woken in the early hours of 26 December 2022 by Ms Heta‑Matthews. He heard the sound of the deceased yelling. This prompted him to run outside.
4.4He described seeing Ms Heta‑Matthews trying to pull his daughter out of the car, but falling over as the appellant drove off. Mr Tuhou attempted to intervene, but the appellant reversed the vehicle and drove off with the deceased still inside.
4.5Mr Tuhou then called 111.
Raywyn Heta‑Matthews
4.6Ms Heta‑Matthews (the deceased’s cousin) gave evidence that she heard the car horn beeping and screaming. She ran out to the driveway saw the appellant’s car there with the front passenger door … open. She saw the deceased in the front passenger seat being held by the appellant, tucked up under his arm — he was holding on to her underwear. Ms Heta‑Matthews ran out the door to the driveway and held on to the open car door.
4.7The deceased looked directly at Ms Heta‑Matthews and was screaming, struggling and saying, “Help me!”
4.8Ms Heta‑Matthews thought she saw the flicker of a knife and the appellant told her to “fuck off” before she had to let go of the car door as he drove away.
4.9She then chased the car and got the first three letters of the number plate. She immediately ran back into the house and alerted her uncle, Mr Tuhou, yelling that the deceased had been taken. She was present during Mr Tuhou’s 111 call and assisted in relaying information to the operator.
4.10Under cross‑examination, Ms Heta‑Matthews reaffirmed that the deceased was not willingly in the car, that the appellant was holding her underwear, and that the deceased was “tucked under his arm”.
Tanisha Hohipa
4.11At the time of the incident, Ms Hohipa was living at [the house] with her uncle, Koroni Tuhou, the deceased’s father.
4.12Ms Hohipa confirmed in evidence that it was originally the plan on the night of the incident for the appellant to come to [the house] to collect the deceased and take her back to New Lynn.
4.13When the appellant arrived, Ms Hohipa got into the car with him and the deceased, believing she was going to see Mr Vake (a mutual friend of hers and the appellants). However, tensions escalated between the appellant and the deceased, and an argument broke out after he accused her of “sleeping with the homie”. Ms Hohipa was told to get out of the car by the appellant and did so, returning inside the house.
4.14Shortly afterward, she heard screaming and the car horn sounding. She described this as a “bomb going off”. Ms Hohipa described the following when she went outside again:
A. I went to go out there to look and then the passenger door was open and then I went to go see what was happening and then she wanted to get out of the car.
Q. What happened next?
A. I tried to help her.
Q. What was she doing, what were you doing?
A. She was trying to pull away from Jovan when he was holding her in there.
Q. How was he holding her?
A. Like by her legs and her feet.
Q. What was she doing?
A. She was like trying to get away from him?
Q. How was she doing that?
A. Like kicking him and stuff.
Q. What did you do?
A. I was trying to grab [her] arms tried to pull her out of the car.
Q. Were you able to?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because he was too busy pulling her as well.
Q. Were they saying anything or making any noise at this point?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Was [Ms Rua‑Tuhou] saying anything or making any noise?
A. She was just, oh, she was just screaming.
It is significant that Mr Pora gave an interview recorded on DVD to the police on 26 December 2022. It was played to the jury. Mr Pora also gave evidence at his trial. The jury thus had the advantage of Mr Pora’s accounts of what happened, and could compare those accounts with the other evidence in the trial. Again, we accept as accurate the Crown’s summary of Mr Pora’s evidence:
Jovan Pora (the appellant)
Police DVD interview on 26 December 2022
4.21In his DVD interview with Police on 26 December 2022, the appellant stated that after an argument inside the house with the deceased’s father, he went to his car, and the deceased followed. They continued arguing inside the vehicle.
4.22The appellant recounted that the deceased was yelling and trying to get out of the car, saying she did not want to come with him. He stated that during this time, her cousin approached the car and opened the passenger door to assist her. The appellant said, “She was yelling to get out of the car and that’s when she, her cousin had opened the passenger door and entered[.] … trying to grab the manual stick shift, do something with it[.] I guess trying to take it out of gear.” He added that her “[auntie]” and her “[auntie’s] daughter” were also approaching the car. At that point, he said he … decided to leave.
4.23When asked, “So [the deceased] was trying to get out of the car, wanted to get outta the car. And you drove, drove away with her in the car?” the appellant replied, “I clearly remember her cousin trying to get her out of the car. Ultimately, I guess you could say yeah that must mean that she wanted to get outta the car”.
4.24Later in the interview, the appellant claimed that the deceased was driving, and he was in the passenger seat. He told Police, “It wasn’t me driving”. Eventually, after being shown CCTV, he admitted that he had been driving.
The appellant’s evidence at trial
4.25The appellant gave evidence at trial. He said he went to [the house] to speak with the deceased on the night in question. After an argument with her father, Mr Tuhou, inside the house, the appellant left and went to his car. The deceased and her cousin, Ms Hohipa, followed him outside and got into the car. The appellant told Ms Hohipa to get out of the vehicle, which she did. He and the deceased remained in the car, and their argument continued.
4.26The appellant said that after seeing two figures approaching the car from the house, he became concerned, stating: “I felt threatened and that I didn’t want to be attacked again or get into any more arguments with the family. That’s where I decided I just had to get me and [Ms Rua‑Tuhou] out of there”. The appellant recalled the deceased starting to scream but only when Ms Hohipa tried pulling her out of the car.
4.27The appellant described the route he took, noting: “I turned right … I drove to the end where I turned right … I really can’t remember much of the drive, but I do know that route and those roads ‘cos I’ve driven them so many times.” He claimed that … he stopped to give way to another vehicle and said to the deceased: “If you don’t want to come with me, walk the fuck back home.” He said she remained in the car and did not leave when given this opportunity.
4.28When asked why he did not stop and let the deceased out after they had left [the house], the appellant responded, “Yes, I could have, and I offered.” He was then asked why, given his evidence that the deceased opened the door of the moving vehicle outside the Gull station, he did not stop the car at that point but instead continued driving onto the motorway. The appellant replied that his “whole focus and mission was to get [Ms Rua‑Tuhou] home safe”. He also gave evidence that the hazard lights came on because he deliberately activated them to alert other drivers after the deceased opened the door outside the Gull station. It was put to him that he was not genuinely concerned for the deceased’s safety but simply did not want her to exit the vehicle. The appellant denied this.
4.29The appellant initially accepted in his evidence in Court that he lied to Police when he told them that the deceased was the driver but later denied lying under cross‑examination, saying that he was just confused. He insisted that his trial evidence was truthful and maintained that he did stop the car and gave the deceased a chance to leave.
4.30The appellant denied kidnapping or intending to harm the deceased. He stated that his sole intention was to take her away from the house to avoid further confrontation with her family. He gave evidence that the subsequent crash occurred when he lost control of the vehicle, the passenger door [had] “[come] open” and the deceased was thrown out of the car.
In our view, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably find the charge proved.
Ms Feyen’s submission that Ms Rua‑Tuhou’s level of intoxication means that the jury could not be sure that she did not consent to being taken away cannot succeed. A post‑mortem analysis showed that Ms Rua‑Tuhou’s blood alcohol level was 225 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.[8] Analysis showed also that Ms Rua‑Tuhou had the active component of cannabis in her blood at a level consistent with her having smoked a cannabis cigarette about 30 minutes previously.
[8]The legal limit for driving is 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood; the criminal limit is 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood: see Land Transport Act 1998, s 56(2) and (3).
There was no expert evidence on how Ms Rua‑Tuhou’s level of intoxication might have affected her ability to give or refuse consent. Instead, the jury had the evidence of those witnesses who observed her on the night. There is nothing unusual in a jury having to decide issues going to the state of mind of a person who is intoxicated. Juries, with their collective experience of life, are well placed to do so.
Similarly, there is nothing in the argument that the duration of the incident was too short to amount to a kidnapping. There is no temporal prerequisite for the offence to commence. If the elements of the offence are present then the offence is committed. Of course, the circumstances, including short duration, can make a kidnapping a technical offence or one so trifling that it should be disregarded. That is true of many offences. We accept the Crown’s submission on this point:
6.27While there is High Court authority to the effect that the duration of any detention must be “more than trifling”,[9] it is also well established that kidnapping is an offence that can occur in an infinite variety of circumstances.[10] As Lang J described in R v Smith:[11]
… At one end of the scale is a deliberate, pre‑meditated plan to kidnap someone for financial gain. At the other end of the scale is a momentary detention that has occurred in the spur of the moment.
[9]Boyd v R (1992) 8 CRNZ 661 (HC); cited in R v Anaru‑Emery (No 4) [2020] NZHC 246 at [49].
[10]R v Wharton (2003) 20 CRNZ 109 (CA) at [11].
[11]R v Smith HC Rotorua CRI-2007-063-5128, 24 March 2009 at [13].
The circumstances of this case do not reveal a technical or trifling offence, even if the jury had accepted Mr Pora’s evidence that he stopped and offered to let her out.
Result
The appeal is dismissed.
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau for Respondent
0
4
0