R v Chase - [2016] NZHC 1509

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 THE TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2015-087-001073 [2016] NZHC 1509

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN

﷢﷢﷢﷢﷢

AND

HOANI JOHN CHASE

Defendant

Hearing: 29 June 2016

Counsel:

H A Wrigley for Crown
R O Gowing for defendant

Judgment:

4 July 2016

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 July 2016 2016 at 4:30 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

R v CHASE [2016] NZHC 1509 [4 July 2016]

Solicitors: Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
Gowing & Co Lawyers Limited, Whakatane

Introduction

[1] Hoani Chase faces 35 charges arising out of what the Crown alleges was a sustained campaign of violent and sexual offending against the first complainant over a period of 18 years. The charges include assault, threatening to kill, kidnapping and sexual violation. He also faces three charges of threatening to kill the second complainant, who is the first complainant’s son. Both complainants will be witnesses at trial, as will the first complainant’s mother.

[2] The Crown has filed a mode of evidence application, seeking directions that:

(a) the first complainant’s video interviews be played as her evidence in chief;

(b)the first complainant be seated in court behind a screen during the playing of the video, cross-examination and re-examination;

(c) the second complainant’s video interview be played as his evidence in chief;

(d)the second complainant be seated outside the court during the playing of the video, cross-examination and re-examination, but connected to the court throughout by CCTV;

(e) the first complainant’s mother give evidence via CCTV from outside of the courtroom.

[3] During the course of the hearing Mr Gowing, counsel for Mr Chase, withdrew his opposition to the complainants’ video interviews being played as their evidence in chief and advised that those directions could accordingly be made by consent. I am satisfied that jurisdiction exists to make the relevant orders and I exercise the Court’s discretion accordingly. I will consider each of the other alternative evidence directions sought below, after briefly outlining the relevant law.

Giving evidence in an “alternative” way – the law

[4] In seeking directions that the relevant witnesses give evidence in an alternative way the Crown relies upon ss 103, 105 and 106 of the Evidence Act 2006 (“Act”). Section 103(3) provides the jurisdictional basis for the making of an alternative mode of evidence direction. It identifies 10 grounds upon which such a direction may be made. It is not disputed that jurisdiction exists in this case to make each of the orders sought.

[5] If jurisdiction exists under s 103(3), then the Court has a wide ranging discretion to assist vulnerable…

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 Chase

Details

AGLC: R v Chase [2016] NZHC 1509
Case: [2016] NZHC 1509
Decision Date: 4 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hoani Chase faces a significant number of charges arising from an alleged sustained campaign of violent and sexual offending against the first complainant over a period of 18 years. The Crown filed a mode of evidence application, seeking directions that the first complainant's video interviews be played as her evidence in chief, the first complainant be seated in court behind a screen during the playing of the video, cross-examination and re-examination, the second complainant’s video interview be played as his evidence in chief, the second complainant be seated outside the court during the playing of the video, cross-examination and re-examination, but connected to the court throughout by CCTV and the first complainant’s mother give evidence via CCTV from outside of the courtroom. The legal issues before the court were whether the Crown's application was justified, and if so, whether the proposed measures would be appropriate to facilitate the witnesses' testimony. The court considered the jurisdiction to make such directions under the Evidence Act 2006, and the relevant mandatory considerations, including fairness to all involved, the need to minimise stress on the witness, and the need to promote the recovery of a complainant from the alleged offence. The court found that the proposed measures would assist in ensuring accurate evidence and a fair trial, and that there would be no prejudice to the defendant. The court made directions that the first complainant's video interviews be played as her evidence in chief, the first complainant be seated in court behind a screen during the playing of the video, cross-examination and re-examination, the second complainant’s video interview be played as his evidence in chief, the second complainant be seated outside the court during the playing of the video, cross-examination and re-examination but connected to the court throughout by CCTV and the first complainant’s mother give evidence via CCTV from outside of the courtroom. The court also prohibited 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 the trial.

Orders