R v Collins - [2008] NZCA 235

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA476/06
[2008] NZCA 235
THE QUEEN
v
BRIAN DERMOT THOMAS COLLINS
Hearing:27 May 2008

Court:William Young P, Randerson and Harrison JJ
Counsel:Appellant in person

P J Shamy and S L Litt for Crown

Judgment:11 July 2008 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against conviction is dismissed.
BThe appeal against sentence is allowed to the extent of reducing an order to pay costs but is otherwise dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Harrison J)
Table of Contents

Para No
Introduction [1]
District Court Evidence

(1)     Prosecution  [4]
(2)     Defence  [30]
Adjournment Application  [39]
Appeal  [47]
(1)     Previous Acquittal  [48]
(2)Legal Representation: ss 24 and 25 New Zealand

Bill of Rights Act 1990  [50]
         (a)     Legal Aid  [51]
         (b)     Trial  [60]
(c)     Miscellaneous Issues  [73]
(3)     Amendments  [80]
(4)     Disclosure  [84]
(5)     Code of Recommendations and Minimum Standards             [86]
Sentence  [90]
(1)     Community Work  [91]
(2)     Veterinarian Costs  [93]
(3)     Disqualification  [94]
Result  [102]

Introduction
[1] Mr Brian Collins appeals against his conviction following trial before Judge Noble and a jury in the District Court at Invercargill on two charges of ill-treating horses under s 29(a) Animal Welfare Act 1999.
[2]       Mr Collins also appeals against the sentence imposed of 200 hours community work together with an order to pay veterinarian costs of $929.80, disqualification for a period of two years from owning or exercising authority in respect of equines and from having any involvement in their management or farming, and an order for disposal within seven days of all horses currently in his possession.
[3]       As in this Court, Mr Collins represented himself at trial.
District Court Evidence
(1)      Prosecution
[4]       The case for the prosecution, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), was that Mr Collins ill-treated two elderly mares, one a thoroughbred and the other a standardbred, by underfeeding them over a prolonged period.
[5]       A number of witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution at trial including an animal welfare inspector, Mr Peter Presland, employed by MAF. He inspected a rural property occupied by Mr Collins at Browns, near Winton in Southland, on 11 November 2004. Mr Collins also occupied a property nearby at Oreti Bridge. He grazed horses on both. Mr Presland was responding to complaints from members of the public.
[6]       Mr Presland noticed a 25 year old thoroughbred mare at the Browns property. She was in foal and in poor condition. He also noted that the grass cover, the only available feed, was light. A disagreement, in which Mr Collins expressed himself in abusive terms, followed Mr Presland’s inquiry about whether he was feeding supplements to the mare. Mr Collins initially resisted Mr Presland’s suggestion to obtain a veterinary opinion on the horse’s condition. Later, though, he agreed for his veterinarian, Mr Andrew Roe, to assess her.
[7]       Mr Presland returned to the Browns property on 15 November. Also present were Mr Roe and a police officer. There was another disagreement about the…

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 Collins

Details

AGLC: R v Collins [2008] NZCA 235
Case: [2008] NZCA 235
Decision Date: 11 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Mr Brian Collins appealed his conviction and sentence for two charges of ill-treating horses under s 29(a) Animal Welfare Act 1999. Collins was also appealing the sentence imposed, which was 200 hours of community work, an order to pay veterinarian costs of $929.80, disqualification for a period of two years from owning or exercising authority in respect of equines and from having any involvement in their management or farming, and an order for disposal within seven days of all horses currently in his possession.

Collins raised 24 grounds of appeal against his conviction, which the court grouped into discrete categories. These categories included previous acquittal, legal representation, amendments, disclosure, and Code of Recommendations and Minimum Standards. The court dismissed all of these grounds of appeal, concluding that Collins’ conviction was valid.

Collins also appealed his sentence, arguing that the order for payment of veterinarian costs was excessive. The court agreed, reducing the amount from $929.80 to $497.80. The court upheld the rest of the sentence, finding that the term of community work and disqualification were appropriate for the seriousness of the offending.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed Collins’ appeal against his conviction on two charges of ill-treating animals. His appeal against sentence was also dismissed, except for the reduction in the order for payment of veterinarian costs from $929.80 to $497.80.

Orders