R v Enoka - [2017] NZHC 698

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-009-001603 [2017] NZHC 698

THE QUEEN

v

ALBERT ENOKA

Hearing: 10 April 2017

Appearances:

C J Lange for the Crown
A J D Bamford for the Defendant

Judgment:

11 April 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] This is my judgment in relation to the disputed facts hearing that has proceeded today.

[2] On 3 June 2016, Mr Enoka pleaded guilty to:

(a) a charge of aggravated burglary that, on 15 February 2015 at Christchurch together with Mr Francis, he entered a building at Kibblewhite Street without authority and with intent to commit an imprisonable offence therein, namely assault, and he had with him a knife;
(b) wounding with intent to injure, namely that, on 15 February 2015 at Christchurch with intent to injure a Mr Kovacs, he wounded Mr Kovacs; and

R v ENOKA [2017] NZHC 698 [11 April 2017]

(c) unlawful detainment, namely that, on or about 15 February 2015 at Christchurch together with Mr Francis, he unlawfully detained a Ms Neho with her consent obtained by duress with intent to cause her to be confined.

[3] The summary of facts in relation to these charges indicated that between 8.00 and 8.30 pm on 15 February 2015 a woman, Miss Johnston, went to an address at Kibblewhite Street to visit a friend called Simon Kovacs. Also at the Kibblewhite Street address was Mr Kovacs’ partner Toni Neho, and Mr Kovacs flatmate Kyle Morgan.

[4] Around 10.00 to 10.30 pm, Miss Johnston telephoned the defendant Enoka. He was angry that she was not at home and thought that she was with some other man. It was arranged that the defendant Enoka would pick Miss Johnston up. She told him that she would meet him on the corner of Kibblewhite and Union Streets.

[5] Miss Johnston walked to the corner of Kibblewhite and Union Streets with Miss Neho and met the defendant Enoka. Mr Enoka was with the defendant Francis and a third unknown male. After they met up, Mr Enoka told the unknown male to stay with Miss Johnston in the car. Miss Neho, Mr Enoka and Mr Francis went back to the Kibblewhite Street address.

[6] Inside the house, Mr Enoka said to Mr Kovacs “Have you been fucking my Missus? What’s she doing here?” The summary referred to Mr Enoka punching Mr Kovacs twice in the mouth with a closed fist. As a result of the punches, Mr Kovacs sustained broken teeth and a fractured jaw.

[7] The summary referred to Mr Enoka telling Mr Kovacs and his flatmate, Mr Morgan, “you’re paying for having her here”. Also, that Mr Enoka told Mr Francis to keep guard on Mr Kovacs and Mr Morgan while he looked for money and other items of value during the course of which Mr Enoka used his knife to slice open Mr Kovacs mattress and base.

[8] There was no dispute as to the statement in the summary of facts:

At one point…

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 Enoka

Details

AGLC: R v Enoka [2017] NZHC 698
Case: [2017] NZHC 698
Decision Date: 11 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Nation J presided over the case of R v Enoka. The defendant, Albert Enoka, had pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated burglary, wounding with intent to injure, and unlawful detainment. The disputed facts hearing was conducted to determine the accuracy of certain statements in the summary of facts. The hearing involved testimonies from Mr Kovacs and Mr Morgan, who corroborated each other's accounts of the events. Mr Enoka gave evidence but was found to be untruthful about certain aspects of the incident.

The legal issues before the court were whether Mr Enoka had pointed a knife at Mr Kovacs and threatened to stab both Mr Kovacs and Mr Morgan, whether he had dragged Mr Kovacs into Mr Morgan's room, and whether he had threatened them with a knife while in the room. The court also needed to determine whether Mr Enoka and Mr Francis had ransacked the house and stolen property while disregarding the owners' feelings about the property.

Nation J accepted Mr Kovacs' account of events, finding it clear and firm in its recollection. The court found Mr Enoka's evidence to be false and determined that Mr Kovacs' account of what occurred could be relied upon. The court was satisfied that Mr Enoka had presented or pointed a knife at Mr Kovacs and threatened to do violence to both men with the knife he was holding. The court also found that Mr Enoka had dragged Mr Kovacs into Mr Morgan's room and, while there, threatened to stab both Mr Kovacs and Mr Morgan. The court confirmed that Mr Enoka and Mr Francis had ransacked the house, damaged property, and stolen items while disregarding the owners' feelings about the property.

The final orders of the court will be based on the findings of the disputed facts hearing and the original guilty pleas entered by Mr Enoka. The court will consider these findings when sentencing Mr Enoka for the charges of aggravated burglary, wounding with intent to injure, and unlawful detainment.

Orders