R v Aranui - [2007] NZCA 354

PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA486/06 [2007] NZCA 354

THE QUEEN

v

ABRAHAM BELL ARANUI

Hearing: 25 July 2007
Court: Wilson, Panckhurst and Venning JJ Appearances: O S Winter for Appellant
D La Hood for Crown

Judgment: 16 August 2007 at 11am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against convictions for rape and unlawful sexual connection is

dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Panckhurst J)

R V ABRAHAM BELL ARANUI CA CA486/06 16 August 2007

An appeal against a rape conviction

[1] Following a trial in the District Court at Napier, the appellant was convicted on one count of sexual violation by rape and one count of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (an oral act). This appeal is against conviction alone, there being no complaint made in relation to the sentence of seven years imprisonment imposed in relation to the rape conviction.

[2] The conviction appeal raises a single narrow issue, namely whether the evidence was sufficient to exclude the appellant’s assertion that he believed on reasonable grounds the complainant consented to the relevant acts. Necessarily, the argument is fact specific, the more so because Mr Winter raised no complaint in relation to the directions to the jury by Judge Rea.

The evidence relevant to reasonable belief in consent

The complainant’s account

[3] On 10 December 2005 the complainant and her boyfriend, Rawiri Bills, socialised with the appellant and his partner, Patricia Beach. The complainant and Ms Beach were close friends. The two couples met at about 9.00 pm at the home of the complainant.

[4] During the evening both couples drank a considerable amount. Cannabis was also consumed. By the early hours of the morning all four were intoxicated.

[5] The complainant and Mr Bills went to bed in her bedroom. The appellant and Ms Beach slept on a couch in the sitting-room. After they retired the complainant and Mr Bills engaged in sexual activity before going to sleep. Later, the complainant awoke, left the bedroom and vomited outside the house. On returning to the bedroom Mr Bills was still asleep. The complainant lay on the bed, partially across her partner with her legs hanging over the side of the bed. She was wearing a robe but nothing underneath.

[6] The complainant was roused and became conscious that somebody was performing oral sex on her. She assumed it was Mr Bills. She described “a flash or a blacking out” and her next awareness was of intercourse occurring. Again, she assumed it was Mr Bills. Then she realised that it was not him because of the roughness of the act, the noise of Mr Bills snoring and, when the person having intercourse spoke, she realised it was not Mr Bills’ voice. The complainant jumped out of bed and endeavoured to wake her partner up. The appellant left the bedroom.

[7] It took some time to wake Mr Bills 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 R v Aranui

Details

AGLC: R v Aranui [2007] NZCA 354
Case: [2007] NZCA 354
Decision Date: 16 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Abraham Bell Aranui, the appellant was convicted in the District Court of sexual violation by rape and unlawful sexual connection. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appeal raised the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to exclude the appellant's assertion that he believed on reasonable grounds that the complainant consented to the relevant acts. The court found that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the appellant did not have a belief in consent, even if it was mistaken. The court observed that the interpretation of the evidence was for the jury, and there was no basis for the intervention of the Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld. Solicitors for the appellant were WinterWoods Lawyers, Palmerston North, and for the respondent, Crown Law Office, Wellington.

Orders