R v Bond - [2015] NZHC 1915

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 [RETRIAL].

PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-009-1438

[2015] NZHC 1915

THE QUEEN

v

DEVON CHARLES BOND

Hearing: 10 August 2015

Appearances:

C J Boshier for the Crown A S Greig for the Defendant

Judgment:

13 August 2015

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] The Crown has made application under s 101 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 for an order that the conviction of the defendant, Devon Bond, for the abduction of a woman and the factual circumstances of that offending be admitted at his trial as propensity evidence.

[2] As a result of a DNA match that has recently become available, Mr Bond is charged with the intruder rape of a woman in May 1994. Mr Bond pleaded guilty in 1995 to a violent sexual attack on a woman. It is the evidence of this offending which the Crown makes application to be admitted as propensity evidence at his trial.

R v BOND (Propensity) [2015] NZHC 1915 [13 August 2015]

Circumstances of the intruder rape

[3] At the time of this offending the complainant was a 42 year old female residing by herself in the Christchurch area. She had recently moved into a new home some 10 days previously. The house backed on to vacant farmland.

[4] At around 1.00 am on 9 May 1994, the complainant was awoken by a loud click. She believed there had been a power cut. The noise was her mains power being switched off manually in the garage by the intruder.

[5] Having got up from her bed and put some more clothing on, the complainant was accosted by the intruder in her hallway. The person was wearing dark clothing and a mask or balaclava. He had a large knife. He walked the complainant back to her bedroom. There, holding the knife against the complainant’s throat, he pushed her onto the bed, initially sitting on top of her, telling her to remain quiet, before turning her over so that she was lying on her stomach.

[6] The intruder directed the complainant to put her hands behind her back. He used a portion of cord cut from the victim’s clothesline to tightly tie her hands together behind her back. He put a pillowcase over his victim’s head, and removed her tracksuit pants. The intruder then digitally penetrated the victim’s vagina before performing oral sex on her. He then raped her until he ejaculated.

[7] After demanding the victim’s purse, the intruder took its contents. He ripped the telephone cord from the socket and threatened the complainant that if he got caught he would be back, before exiting the house via the garage. The victim, after managing to free herself, ran to neighbours for help.

[8] No arrest was made until December…

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 Bond

Details

AGLC: R v Bond [2015] NZHC 1915
Case: [2015] NZHC 1915
Decision Date: 13 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the Crown sought to admit evidence of a prior sexual offending by Devon Bond, charged with the intruder rape of a woman in 1994. The court was required to determine the admissibility of the evidence under section 43 of the Evidence Act 2006, which mandates that propensity evidence may only be admitted if its probative value outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice. The court assessed the similarities and differences between the prior offending and the current charge, considering factors such as the frequency of the acts, their connection in time, and their similarity. The court found that while there were notable differences between the two incidents, the common predatory nature of the sexual offending provided sufficient probative value. The court also concluded that appropriate jury directions could mitigate any risk of unfair prejudice, allowing the evidence to be admitted. The court subsequently made an order prohibiting publication of the judgment and proceedings until the final disposition of the trial.

Orders