R v Harrison - [2007] NZCA 588

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA545/07
[2007] NZCA 588
THE QUEEN
v
MARYANNE MICHELLE HARRISON
Hearing:22 November 2007

Court:Glazebrook, Williams and MacKenzie JJ
Counsel:A Sharko for Appellant

K B F Hastie for Crown

Judgment:19 December 2007 at 11am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

TIME FOR APPEALING IS EXTENDED, BUT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by MacKenzie J)
Introduction
[1]       The appellant was convicted following trial before Judge Mackintosh and a jury in the District Court at Napier in July 2007 on one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. She was acquitted on two counts of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The principal ground of the appeal is that “the evidence was unreliable and should not have been left to the jury”.
[2]       Extension of time to appeal is also sought. That was not opposed, and the appeal was only a few days out of time. Time for appealing is extended accordingly.
The evidence
[3]       The three charges arose out of an incident on 31 January 2007. The appellant had driven her vehicle to a house in Napier occupied by her brother and his partner. Also at the house that evening were the appellant’s sister, and a number of others. The appellant got into an altercation, which escalated from verbal to physical, with her sister. The Crown case was that the appellant then got into her vehicle, which was parked in the driveway, and intentionally drove at her sister (Berta), her brother (Frank) and Ms Kohi (Dione), thereby wounding Berta and injuring the two others. Berta suffered cut tendons in her hand, lacerations to her shoulder and leg, cuts and scratches to her face, and some bruising, caused by the vehicle and by broken glass from a window struck by the vehicle. Frank received injuries to his leg, and Dione received abrasions to her arm. The appellant was convicted on the count in respect of Berta.
[4]       There were several eyewitness accounts of what occurred, including accounts from all three victims. Frank gave evidence of a fight developing between his sisters and of his trying to break it up. He said that he did not remember the appellant’s vehicle being in the driveway and that he did not know how he had received the injuries for which he received hospital treatment. Dione also gave evidence of the physical altercation between the two sisters, and that the appellant left and went to her truck which was in the driveway. She said that she did not ever see the truck moving, or see anyone in it. She remembered Frank and Berta being injured, by being run over, she presumed, by a truck. As to how abrasions, which she suffered, were caused, she said she thought the appellant had hit her with the truck but all she could remember was just walking and then she just fell. She was not really sure what caused her to fall. In cross-examination she…

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 Harrison

Details

AGLC: R v Harrison [2007] NZCA 588
Case: [2007] NZCA 588
Decision Date: 19 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Maryanne Michelle Harrison, the appellant was convicted in the District Court at Napier in July 2007 on one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, with respect to her sister Berta. She was acquitted on two counts of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The appellant argued that the evidence was unreliable and should not have been left to the jury. Additionally, an extension of time to appeal was sought.

The legal issues in this case were whether the evidence of the appellant's intoxication and the victim's inability to distinguish between reality and dreams was so unreliable that it should not have been left to the jury and if the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The court needed to determine if the evidence was reliable enough to be considered by the jury, and if the verdict was reasonable based on the evidence presented.

The Court of Appeal held that there was no jurisdiction for an appeal against the trial judge's ruling under section 347. The court found that the evidence of Mr Rehutai and Berta was not so inherently unreliable that it should not have been left to the jury. The assessment of the reliability of evidence is generally a matter within the province of the jury, and the exclusion of evidence on the grounds of its inherent unreliability must be undertaken with due regard to the respective functions of judge and jury. The court also found that the verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence, as the jury had considered the evidence carefully and acquitted the appellant on the other two charges. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence was reliable enough to be considered by the jury and that the verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The appellant's conviction on the count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to her sister Berta stands.

Orders