R v Coe - [2018] NZHC 502

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-055-690

[2018] NZHC 502

THE QUEEN

v

IOSEFA BOB COE

Hearing: 19 March 2018

Appearances:

L Radich for the Crown

M Hislop for the Defendant

Rulings:

19 March 2018

Reasons:

22 March 2018

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me
on 22 March 2018 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Manukau Counsel: M Hislop, Auckland

R v COE [2018] NZHC 502 [19 March 2018]

Introduction

[1] Iosefa Coe faces charges in relation to one complainant with whom he had been in a relationship. The alleged offending took place in February 2017 (the February 2017 offending). The charges are:

(a)Assault with intent to injure;1
(b)Kidnapping;2
(c)Reckless driving;3 and
(d)Driving with excess breath alcohol (third or subsequent).4

[2]The trial commenced on 19 March 2018.

[3] Mr Coe was also to have been tried on a further charge as part of the same trial, namely a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.5 This charge related to the same complainant. The offending took place in April 2017 (the April 2017 offending).

[4]However, on 2 March 2018, Mr Coe pleaded guilty to this latter charge.

[5] The Crown applied to lead evidence of the April 2017 offending, together with other evidence about Mr Coe’s conduct towards the complainant, as propensity evidence on the charges of assault with intent to injure and kidnapping.

[6]The application was opposed by Mr Coe.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 193. The maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years.
2      Crimes Act, s 209(b). The maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(a). Under s 35(2), the maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding $4,500. The court must also order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for six months or more.
4      Land Transport Act, s 56(1). Under s 56(4), the maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding $6,000. The court must also order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for more than one year.
5      Crimes Act, s 188(1). The maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years.

[7] I heard the application on the first morning of the trial after the jury had been empanelled. I granted the application. These are the reasons for my decision.

The February 2017 offending

[8] The complainant and Mr Coe had been in an on-and-off relationship since 2014. She became pregnant and their son was born in November 2015. As at February 2017, the complainant and Mr Coe were not in a relationship. The complainant was the sole provider for their son.

[9]The Crown’s case is as follows.

[10]…

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 Coe

Details

AGLC: R v Coe [2018] NZHC 502
Case: [2018] NZHC 502
Decision Date: 22 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Iosefa Coe was on trial for assault with intent to injure, kidnapping, reckless driving and driving with excess breath alcohol. The complainant and Mr Coe had been in an on-and-off relationship since 2014 and had a son born in November 2015. The Crown sought to lead evidence of the April 2017 offending and other evidence about Mr Coe’s conduct towards the complainant as propensity evidence on the charges of assault with intent to injure and kidnapping. Mr Coe opposed the application. The court was required to determine whether the proposed evidence was propensity evidence and whether its probative value outweighed the risk of unfair prejudicial effect. The court held that the evidence was relationship propensity evidence and the probative value of the evidence was high, outweighing any degree of unfair prejudice. The proposed propensity evidence was therefore admissible in relation to both the charge of assault with intent to injure and the charge of kidnapping. The court ordered that the proposed evidence be admitted in relation to both charges.

Orders