R v Crozier

[2017] NZHC 1323

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-018-000004 [2017] NZHC 1323

THE QUEEN

v

DENIS BERNARD CROZIER

Hearing:	12 June 2017
Appearances:	B Hawes for the Crown M Zintl and M Taylor-Cyphers for the Defendant
Date ofRuling:	15 June 2017

RULING 3 OF NATION J

[1]      The defence have called a witness, Patricia Williams, to give evidence of conversations she had with Josephine Clarke.  Josephine Clarke was the witness who was at Mr Crozier’s address when the incident occurred on New Year’s Eve 2015. She is the witness who described Mr Crozier hitting Mr Thompson with a bat.

[2]      Ms Williams has given evidence about a conversation which she had with Josephine Clarke during January 2016.   She gave evidence of Josephine Clarke being upset and making a comment to the effect that she did not know how she was going to pay Mr Thompson back the money that she owed.  This is in the context of the defence suggesting, by way of cross-examination, that Josephine Clarke may, herself, have been responsible for injuring Mr Thompson in the serious way that occurred.  It has also been suggested by the defence that Ms Clarke and indeed Mr

De Groen have both fabricated an account of what happened at the address.

R v CROZIER [2017] NZHC 1323 [15 June 2017]

[3]      On cross-examination, Mr Hawes was asking Ms Williams questions about this conversation that occurred in January 2016 and he asked questions as to what, if anything, Ms Clarke had said to Ms Williams about what had happened the night before.

[4]      Mr Zintl objected to that question on the basis that he was seeking to ask questions about a prior consistent statement made by Ms Clarke.  It is assumed that, with that objection, Mr Zindt is anticipating Ms Williams is being asked to provide evidence that Ms Clarke told her at that time that Mr Thompson had been hit by Mr Crozier with a bat.  Mr Hawes has said during argument that he does not know what the answer will be to this question but he seeks to ask it to find out more about the context in which Ms Clarke was upset during that conversation she had with Ms Williams.

[5]      Mr Zintl’s primary objection is that, in acknowledging it is a prior consistent statement, in this trial there has been a lot of evidence about prior consistent statements made by Ms Clarke and that evidence, as to a further prior consistent statement, is essentially unfairly prejudicial and it is not necessary to respond to the suggestion of recent invention or fabrication or to deal with issues as to veracity.

[6]      My view is that a serious challenge has obviously been made to Ms Clarke’s veracity as to what she says she observed.  Evidence has been led from this witness as to Ms Clarke being upset in January 2016, a relatively short time after the alleged incident, and it has been suggested that the reason she was upset at that time was because of money she owed  Mr Thompson.    I consider that  there is no  unfair prejudice in these circumstances to the Crown asking Ms Williams as to what, if anything, Ms Clarke had to say about the incident, about injuries to Mr Thompson and how it might have happened.  The evidence is admissible pursuant to s 35 of the Evidence Act 2006 and I will allow the question.

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly & Co., Christchurch

M Zintl, Barrister, Greymouth.