Prasad v Police - [2025] NZHC 459

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-607

[2025] NZHC 459

BETWEEN
RISHAN BIREN PRASAD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 25 February and 6 March 2025

Appearances:

R Chaudhry for Appellant J Kim for Respondent

Judgment:

11 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against conviction]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 11 March 2025 at 11.00 am
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
R Chaudhry, Manukau
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Crown Solicitor at Manukau

PRASAD v POLICE [2025] NZHC 459 [11 March 2025]

[1] Following a Judge-alone trial in the District Court, Judge S Patel found Mr Prasad guilty on charges of wilfully damaging a motor vehicle, assaulting his former partner (the complainant) with intent to injure her and assaulting her with a weapon.1

[2] Mr Prasad appeals against conviction on the basis that the Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence to the extent that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. He also says the Judge’s decision was unreasonable having regard to the evidence. In addition, he argues the trial was unfair because the complainant did not appear as a witness and his counsel was therefore deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine her.

Background

[3] Mr Prasad stood trial on five charges. They comprised intentionally damaging the complainant’s motor vehicle2 and cellphone,3 assaulting her with intent to injure her4 and assaulting her using a coffee table and a pair of shoes as a weapon.5

[4] The charges were laid following an incident that occurred on the afternoon of 18 January 2023. It began with a verbal altercation between Mr Prasad and the complainant that occurred in her vehicle. The pair then returned to the complainant’s address, where a physical altercation took place in which Mr Prasad allegedly struck the complainant with a pair of shoes and a coffee table. These led to the charges of assault with a weapon. He also allegedly punched her to the face and kicked her. This led to the charge of assault with intent to injure. In addition, the prosecution alleged that Mr Prasad deliberately damaged the complainant’s motor vehicle by breaking the wing mirror and damaging the front (dashboard) console and window wiper lever. This led to the charge of intentionally damaging the motor vehicle. Finally, the complainant alleged Mr Prasad had damaged her cellphone by hitting it against hard surfaces in her motor vehicle and then throwing it at the windscreen of the vehicle. This led to the second charge of causing intentional damage.

1      Police v Prasad [2024] NZDC 29760.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 269(2)(b).
3      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a).
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 193.
5      Section 202C.

[5] By the time the trial was held the complainant was living in Australia. She had made it clear in emails she sent to Constable Monique Ashford-Ross, the officer in charge of the case, that she did not wish to assist the prosecution and…

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 Prasad v Police

Details

AGLC: Prasad v Police [2025] NZHC 459
Case: [2025] NZHC 459
Decision Date: 11 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Rishan Biren Prasad, appeals against his conviction by Judge S Patel in the District Court for wilfully damaging a motor vehicle, assaulting his former partner with intent to injure her and assaulting her with a weapon. The appeal proceeds by way of rehearing. The appellant argues the Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence to the extent that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. He also says the Judge’s decision was unreasonable having regard to the evidence. In addition, he argues the trial was unfair because the complainant did not appear as a witness and his counsel was therefore deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine her. The Court finds the appeal against conviction should be dismissed. The Court finds that the Judge did not err in his assessment of the evidence. It also finds that the absence of the complainant did not result in the trial becoming unfair.

Orders