R v Bruce - [2021] NZHC 626

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2019-088-1656

[2021] NZHC 626

THE QUEEN

v

MYLES ANTHONY BRUCE

Hearing: 2 December 2020

Counsel:

M B Smith and S T Patia for Crown

W D McKean and S L Plaisted for Defendant

Judgment:

3 December 2020

Reasons:

26 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 March 2021 at 11:00 am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
MWIS Lawyers (Whangarei) for Crown WRMK Lawyers (Whangarei) for Defendant

R v BRUCE [2021] NZHC 626 [3 December 2020]

Introduction

[1] On 3 December 2020, I delivered a results judgment1 on applications for discharge under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 made by Mr Bruce at the close of the Crown case.

[2] Mr Bruce stood trial on 44 charges of sexual and physical violence relating to five adult complainants. The charges related to the period December 2000 to January 2015. During this period Mr Bruce entered into domestic relationships with the five complainants. He was 17 years old at the beginning of the period. He applied to be discharged on charges 1, 17, 18, 21, 23, 26, 30, 32, 34, 40 and 42. I dismissed Mr Bruce’s applications in respect of charges 23, 30, 32, 34 and 40. I granted his applications in respect of charges 1, 21 and 42. I dismissed his applications in respect of charges 17, 18 and 26 but amended them from charges of injuring with intent to injure to charges of male assaults female.

[3] I now give reasons for my decisions. I address the charges in the three groups above: the dismissed applications, the granted applications, and the charges which I amended.

Dismissed applications

[4] The complainants BW, HS, SR, and EH all gave accounts of particular occasions on which they alleged sexual contact took place without their consent. Those occasions were made the subjects of specific charges. Each complainant also gave general evidence of the course of their relationship with Mr Bruce and alleged that on many occasions there was sexual contact to which they did not consent. These allegations were the subject of representative charges.

[5] A representative charge is brought where a complainant alleges that a criminal act occurred more than once but the complainant cannot differentiate them. To sustain a representative charge, there must be sufficient evidence to go to the jury that the charged act occurred on at least one occasion.

1 R v Bruce [2020] NZHC 3185.

[6] Mr Bruce applied for discharge on charges 23, 30, 32, 34 and 40. All were charges of sexual violation in some form and all were representative charges.

[7] On the representative charges, Mr McKean’s submission was there was insufficient evidence that the complainants did not consent to the sexual contact charged and there was insufficient evidence…

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 Bruce

Details

AGLC: R v Bruce [2021] NZHC 626
Case: [2021] NZHC 626
Decision Date: 3 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bruce, the defendant stood trial on 44 charges of sexual and physical violence relating to five adult complainants. The charges spanned from December 2000 to January 2015, during which Mr. Bruce had entered into domestic relationships with the complainants. The court was tasked with determining the sufficiency of evidence for each charge and whether Mr. Bruce's applications for discharge under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 should be granted.

The legal issues centered around the definition of consent and whether the complainants' alleged lack of consent could be substantiated by the evidence presented. The court had to consider whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Mr. Bruce did not believe on reasonable grounds that the complainants consented to the sexual acts. The court also had to decide if the evidence could support a finding that the complainants' consent, if given, was not freely and voluntarily given but rather a submission to Mr. Bruce's demands due to his overborne will.

Brewer J concluded that the jury could reasonably convict on certain charges based on the complainants' accounts of repeated non-consensual sexual acts and the pattern of behavior that left no doubt of the absence of consent. For instance, in the case of HS, the court found that her testimony about being mentally and emotionally drained, feeling powerless, and submitting to Mr. Bruce's demands due to his relentless pressure could support a finding of non-consensual sexual acts. However, the court also found that in some instances, such as the camping incident involving HS, the evidence did not support a finding of non-consensual sex, as the complainant had consented, albeit reluctantly, to avoid further conflict.

The court granted Mr. Bruce's applications for discharge on certain charges where the evidence was deemed insufficient to prove the elements of the offence. For example, on charges of threatening to kill, the court found that the complainants did not provide evidence of specific threats that could be substantiated by the prosecution. The court also amended certain charges from injuring with intent to injure to male assaults female where the complainants did not provide evidence of injury, and the defence did not identify any illegitimate prejudice from the amendment.

Ultimately, the jury acquitted Mr. Bruce on several charges but convicted him on the remaining 33 charges. The court's detailed analysis and application of the law of consent and the evidence presented provide a comprehensive understanding of the criteria for determining consent and the sufficiency of evidence in sexual violence cases.

Orders