Pritchard v Police - [2021] NZHC 2821

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2021-441-015

[2021] NZHC 2821

BETWEEN
ADRIAN REGAN PRITCHARD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 13 October 2021

Appearances:

P Jensen for the Appellant (audio only) I Murray for the Respondent (AVL)

Judgment:

21 October 2021

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(conviction and sentence appeal)

[1] As a result of an incident on the evening of 14 March 2020, Adrian Regan Pritchard, 49 years old, was convicted of the assault of a six-year-old child. He was initially charged with assault of both the child and the child’s father.

[2]I summarise the factual background based on the findings in the District Court.

[3] At 9:00 pm Mr Pritchard, a man who worked as a counsellor in addiction services, attended the house of the child’s mother after she had called for his assistance. The mother was to collect clothing from the house before going to stay at another address for the night. Shortly after Mr Pritchard arrived at the house, so did the child and the child’s father, who were angry at Mr Pritchard and began yelling at him. At some stage the child ran up to Mr Pritchard’s car and kicked it. In response, Mr Pritchard swore at the child, and attempted to punch him. His blow did not connect because the grandmother was able to pull the child out of the way. The child’s father

PRITCHARD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2821 [21 October 2021]

became aggressive and placed himself between Mr Pritchard and his vehicle. Mr Pritchard pushed the father out of the way to get to his vehicle. Mr Pritchard then drove away.

District Court decision

[4] The charges were determined in a judge-alone trial in the District Court on 9 June 2020.1 His Honour heard evidence from four witnesses: the child’s grandmother, the child’s mother, the child’s neighbour, and Mr Pritchard.

[5] His Honour accepted the evidence given by the mother and grandmother and rejected the contention that they had colluded in any way.2 The Judge was further assisted by the neighbour’s evidence, in particular, by the neighbour’s testimony that she heard a man say “you fuckin little cunt”.3 His Honour said that those words gave weight to the evidence given by the mother and grandmother. The Judge noted Mr Pritchard’s denials but, in respect of the charge of assaulting the child, found him guilty. In making that decision, the Judge said:

[29] So therefore, in respect of the charge of assaulting [the child], a child aged six years, I find that to be proven. It is my view and I find that Mr Pritchard, whether it was because he was angry or had become incensed for whatever reason, got out of his vehicle, swore at [the child] and then took a swing at him. Even though he did not connect with his punch I am satisfied to the standard required that he did intentionally apply force. Therefore, on the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pritchard v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NZHC 2821
Decision Date: 21 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adrian Regan Pritchard has appealed against his conviction and sentence for assault of a six-year-old child. The appeal was heard by Grice J. The key issue was whether the trial judge erred in his consideration of the evidence leading to the conviction. Alternatively, the appeal sought a discharge without conviction under s 107 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The High Court found no error in the trial judge's interpretation of the evidence and dismissed the appeal on that ground. Regarding the discharge without conviction, the Court found that the consequences of the conviction would not be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. The appeal for a discharge without conviction was also dismissed.

The final orders of the Court were to grant leave to appeal out of time, to decline the admission of certain affidavit evidence, to admit the remainder of the affidavit evidence in relation to the application for a discharge without conviction, to dismiss the conviction appeal, and to dismiss the application for a discharge without conviction.

Orders