R v Anaru-Emery - [2020] NZHC 246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2018-070-005243

[2020] NZHC 246

THE QUEEN

v

JASON WHERO ANARU-EMERY

Hearing: 18 and 19 February 2020 (held in Hamilton)

Counsel:

A J Pollett and E Collis for Crown

A Dawson and R Stevens for defendant

Ruling:

19 February 2020

Reasons:

21 February 2020

REASONS FOR RULING NO. 4 OF KATZ J

Solicitors:Pollett Legal Limited, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Tauranga Public Defence Service, Tauranga

R v ANARU-EMERY [2020] NZHC 246 [19 February 2020]

Introduction

[1] Following a fatal car accident near Te Puke, Jason Anaru-Emery was charged with male assaults female, kidnapping and manslaughter. The trial of those charges took place before a jury, commencing on 10 February 2020.

[2] At the end of the Crown case the defence applied to dismiss the manslaughter and kidnapping charges. I dismissed the manslaughter charge. I declined, however, to dismiss the kidnapping charge. Rather, I gave leave to the Crown to amend the particulars of that charge. These are my reasons for those rulings.

Summary

[3] On 21 July 2018 a young couple, both aged 17, left a party together in a car. Not long afterwards, the car crashed. Tragically, the young woman, Halayna Wagstaff, was fatally injured. She died almost instantly. A lengthy investigation followed. The young man, Mr Anaru-Emery, was eventually charged with male assaults female, kidnapping, and manslaughter by unlawful act, the unlawful act being dangerous driving.

[4] Although Ms Wagstaff was driving when the couple left the party, CCTV footage showed that shortly afterwards she pulled the car over to the side of the road on Jellicoe Street, Te Puke. She got out of the driver’s side and walked away. Mr Anaru-Emery got out of the passenger side of the vehicle and chased after her.

[5] The Crown case at trial was that Mr Anaru-Emery dragged Ms Wagstaff back across the road and into the car, pushing her through the driver’s door. CCTV footage indicates that he then got back into the car himself, also through the driver’s door. An arm (which both counsel submitted belonged to Mr Anaru-Emery) then reached out and closed the passenger door. Within a few minutes of driving off, the vehicle left the road at high speed by the Waiari Bridge, went over a bank, and hit a power pole before coming to a stop.

[6] For Mr Anaru-Emery to be convicted of manslaughter, the Crown was required to prove that he was the driver of the car, beyond reasonable doubt. Although several witnesses saw the car after it left Jellicoe Street, no-one could identify the driver. The Crown therefore relied on circumstantial evidence (summarised at [40](a) to [40](c) below) to support an inference that Mr Anaru-Emery must have been the driver.

[7] At the end of the Crown case, the defence applied to dismiss the kidnapping and manslaughter charges1 on the basis that, as a matter of law, a properly directed jury could not reasonably…

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 R v Anaru-Emery 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: [2020] NZHC 246
Decision Date: 21 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Katz J heard the case of the Crown versus Jason Whero Anaru-Emery. The defendant was charged with kidnapping and manslaughter following a car accident that resulted in the death of a young woman. At the conclusion of the Crown's case, the defence applied to dismiss the kidnapping and manslaughter charges on the basis that a properly directed jury could not reasonably convict the defendant of those charges. Katz J dismissed the manslaughter charge but declined to dismiss the kidnapping charge, giving leave to the Crown to amend the particulars of the kidnapping charge.

Katz J found that the forensic evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to who was driving the car at the time of the accident, and therefore a properly directed jury could not reasonably conclude that the defendant was the driver. The court accepted the evidence of the Crown's expert forensic scientist, who concluded that the blood splatter pattern on the passenger side windscreen indicated that the source of the blood was directly in front of the dashboard rather than being from the other side of the car. Katz J found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the Crown was not sufficiently strong to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, in light of the forensic evidence.

However, Katz J found that the evidence relating to what happened on Jellicoe Street was sufficient to meet all of the elements of the charge of kidnapping. Katz J accepted that the defendant intentionally took away or detained the victim by dragging her back to the vehicle and pushing her in it, without her consent. Katz J found that the Crown's case was that any detention or confinement had occurred in the motor vehicle, and therefore if the Crown could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was the driver of the motor vehicle, the victim could not have been detained in it. Katz J gave leave to the Crown to amend the particulars of the kidnapping charge to focus solely on the events on Jellicoe Street.

In conclusion, Katz J dismissed the manslaughter charge and gave leave to the Crown to amend the particulars of the kidnapping charge. The case highlights the importance of forensic evidence in criminal cases and the need for the Crown to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders