R v Hallett - [2013] NZHC 1077

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2011-063-005475 [2013] NZHC 1077

THE QUEEN

v

MENZIES REGINALD JOHN HALLETT

Hearing: 22-24, 26 and 29-30 April 2013

Counsel: A F Pilditch and A J Gordon for the Crown
P G Mabey QC for the Accused

Judgment: 30 April 2013

Reasons: 14 May 2013

REASONS JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

[Re Availability of Partial Defence of Provocation]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 14 May 2013 at 2.00 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Counsel: P G Mabey QC P O Box 13199 Tauranga 13199 (DX HP40075) for the
Accused

Solicitors: Gordon Pilditch P O Box 740 Rotorua 3040 for the Crown

R v HALLETT HC ROT CRI-2011-063-005475 [30 April 2013]

[1] The accused, Menzies Hallett, was on trial for the murder of Rodney Tahu. After the close of the Crown’s case, the defence elected not to call evidence. I then heard argument from counsel regarding whether or not there was a proper foundation for the partial defence of provocation to be put to the jury. This partial defence, which would have been available to Mr Hallett in 1979, remained available to him, despite its repeal in December 2009.

[2] I found that provocation should not be put to the jury. Counsel agreed that the reasons for the finding could be provided later. I now do so.

Facts

[3] The Crown’s evidence of the circumstances surrounding Mr Tahu’s death can be found primarily in the evidence of Mrs Sharpe. She is the former wife of Mr Hallett, and he gave her an account of the shooting of Mr Tahu approximately five hours after it occurred. Shortly thereafter she related this account to the Police. There is also evidence from other witnesses, who were close to the scene of the shooting, which is consistent with parts of Mrs Sharpe’s evidence, thus showing that she could only have learned of the events she describes from someone who was present when Mr Tahu was shot. Furthermore, her evidence of how Mr Tahu came to die was largely unchallenged by Mr Hallett.

[4] Mr Tahu worked as a service station attendant at a service station in Turangi. The station usually closed at 1.00 am. At approximately 1.03 am on 16 August 1979, Mr Tahu had closed up, set the burglar alarm and was in his motor vehicle preparing to leave the station when Mr Hallett arrived. His vehicle had developed a knock in the engine and so he wanted to purchase oil for it.

[5] Mr Hallett was angry and upset, as a result of a dispute with his former wife over the custody arrangements of their teenage daughters. He was driving south either to see Mrs Hallett, or his elder daughter, who had said she wanted to live with her mother. He was not in a good frame of mind; he had consumed a fair amount of alcohol; and he had a loaded hand-gun…

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 Hallett

Details

AGLC: R v Hallett [2013] NZHC 1077
Case: [2013] NZHC 1077
Decision Date: 14 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hallett was heard in the High Court of New Zealand. The accused, Menzies Reginald John Hallett, was on trial for the murder of Rodney Tahu, which occurred in 1979. Despite the partial defence of provocation being repealed in December 2009, the court had to determine if it could still be considered in this case. The central legal issue was whether the partial defence of provocation should be available to the jury as a possible mitigating factor in the murder charge.

The court's reasoning focused on the specific circumstances of the incident and the statutory requirements for provocation under Section 169 of the Crimes Act 1961. The court had to determine if there was any evidence of provocation that could lead to a reduction of the charge from murder to manslaughter. The evidence showed that Mr Tahu had taken two steps towards Mr Hallett, which was not enough to provoke an ordinary person to the point of losing self-control and committing murder. The court found that Mr Hallett's state of mind due to personal disputes and alcohol consumption did not factor into the assessment of provocation under Section 169(3).

Ultimately, the court concluded that there was no evidence of provocation sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of self-control and thereby induce them to commit the act of homicide. Consequently, the partial defence of provocation should not be put to the jury. The court's judgment was that the circumstances did not support the availability of the defence, even considering the potential order of the shots fired. The court held that faced with Mr Tahu's conduct, no ordinary New Zealander would have reacted by firing shots at him.

Orders