R v Alexander - [2017] NZHC 1693

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-009-9101

[2017] NZHC 1693

THE QUEEN

v

JAYDEN ALEXANDER

Hearing: 12 July 2017

Appearances:

A McRae for Crown

J Rapley for Defendant

Judgment:

21 July 2017

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] The defendant, Jayden Alexander, is charged with the murder of his brother, Tainui Wano. The Crown case is that Mr Wano died as a result of being stabbed by Mr Alexander. The Crown seeks orders that propensity evidence it proposes to call is admissible at Mr Alexander’s trial.1

Background

[2] On the morning of 13 September last year, Mr Alexander visited his brother at an address at Ashburton. Also present were Mr Wano’s partner, Ms Reese Aranui, and

1 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 101.

R v ALEXANDER [2017] NZHC 1693 [21 July 2017]

a male associate, Cameron Hall. Throughout the day they drank alcohol in the lounge. All became intoxicated. At around 4 pm, Mr Wano together with his partner went to his room to sleep.

[3] Sometime after 9 pm, Mr Alexander was making a noise from the lounge area and causing damage to the property. Mr Wano awoke. Annoyed with the noise and his brother’s actions, he got up and went down the hallway. He told Mr Alexander to calm down. Mr Alexander was angry. He said that he was stuck in the lounge because the door to the hallway had locked or jammed, and he was going to kick the door in. Mr Wano told Mr Alexander to respect his property or go home. Eventually, Mr Hall who was inside the lounge managed to get the door open and Mr Wano went back to bed.

[4] At around 10.20 pm banging was heard in the hallway. Ms Aranui described the sound as being like a combination of “punching the wall, stumbling, and banging the wall in frustration”. She could hear Mr Alexander mumbling in the hallway. Mr Wano again got out of bed. As he got to the bedroom door, Ms Aranui observed the door beginning to open and that Mr Alexander had his arm through the door.

[5] Mr Wano was heard to say, “You hold a knife to me eh?”, and pushed Mr Alexander away into the hallway. Ms Aranui heard Mr Alexander say, “Yeah, yeah, you think I won’t do it?”, and Mr Wano replying by saying, “Get, go home, roll out”. Mr Wano then started pushing Mr Alexander to the front door to get him out of his house.

[6] Once Mr Alexander was out of the house and the front door closed, Mr Wano discovered he was bleeding from his chest. Ms Aranui placed a towel on the wound and returned Mr Wano to the bedroom before calling an ambulance. However,…

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 R v Alexander

Details

AGLC: R v Alexander [2017] NZHC 1693
Case: [2017] NZHC 1693
Decision Date: 21 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jayden Alexander stands accused of the murder of his brother, Tainui Wano, who was stabbed in the chest. The Crown seeks orders that certain propensity evidence be admitted at the trial. The defence objects to the admissibility of the proposed evidence. The issues to be determined are whether the propensity evidence is probative of any issue in dispute, and whether its probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect. The court found that the evidence of Ms Leahy-Alexander and Ms Alexander was not admissible as it was not probative of any issue in dispute. The evidence of Ms Heke relating to the 2015 incident, and her evidence of Mr Alexander threatening her with a knife, was also found not to be admissible. However, the court ruled that Ms Heke’s evidence about Mr Alexander’s aggressive conduct towards his brother, and of his confronting her with a knife and attempting to use it on her, was admissible. The court ruled that an order be made prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest is permitted.

Orders