R v Hunt - [2007] NZCA 179

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA402/06
CA487/06 [2007] NZCA 179

THE QUEEN

v

PETER HARRY JOSEPH HUNT

Hearing: 19 April 2007
Court: Glazebrook, Randerson and Ronald Young JJ Counsel: M A Edgar for Appellant
M D Downs for Crown

Judgment: 27 April 2007

Reasons for Judgment: 7 May 2007 at 4pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed.
B The conviction is set aside. C No retrial is ordered.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ronald Young J)

R V HUNT CA CA402/06 27 April 2007

[1] On Friday 27 April 2007 we allowed this appeal, set aside the appellant’s conviction, made an order that no retrial follow and advised reasons for these decisions would follow. We now give our reasons.

[2] On 4 July 2006 the appellant together with a co-accused Mr Vai Feterika was found guilty by a jury on one count of aggravated robbery. Judge Blackie, the trial Judge, subsequently sentenced the appellant and Mr Feterika to two years and three months imprisonment. The appeal against conviction was originally based on an allegation of a miscarriage of justice said to have arisen from the conduct of his counsel at trial. During the hearing of this appeal further grounds of appeal came to light relating to the Judge’s summing up as it related to parties and a breach of s 366 of the Crimes Act by Crown (trial) counsel. The appellant also appealed against sentence.

Background

[3] The Crown alleged that the appellant, Mr Feterika and others were in a car in Otahuhu when they saw the victim whom they vaguely knew. They stopped the car and Mr Feterika approached the victim and punched him to the ground. Two others from the car joined the attack on the victim one of whom was the appellant. The victim was punched and kicked a number of times. One of the offenders, the victim said a man in a blue cap, then took a jacket and shoes from the victim.

[4] Ms Carol Hutson was a witness to some of the incident. She pulled up in her car at her home as the assault was occurring. At trial she identified Mr Feterika and the appellant as the assailants. She identified a third man who wore a cap as also present. Ms Hutson said it was probably Mr Feterika who took the jacket and shoes. She said when she tried to stop the assault Mr Feterika claimed the jacket was his.

[5] The appellant made a statement to the police. He admitted he had been at the scene of the assault on the victim and had been right next to those involved. The appellant denied he had assaulted the victim but said he had held the victim. He agreed the victim’s jacket had been taken. He said a boy from the car called Jack,

who it was agreed was the man in the cap, had assaulted the victim and taken his jacket and shoes.

[6] Neither 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 Hunt

Details

AGLC: R v Hunt [2007] NZCA 179
Case: [2007] NZCA 179
Decision Date: 7 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hunt involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant, Peter Harry Joseph Hunt, by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant and his co-accused, Mr Vai Feterika, were found guilty by a jury on one count of aggravated robbery. The central legal issues in this appeal pertained to the adequacy of the summing up by the trial judge concerning the concept of parties in a criminal offence, the propriety of the judge's direction on the inferences the jury could draw from the evidence, and a potential breach of s 366 of the Crimes Act by the Crown counsel during the trial.

The court found that the summing up did not adequately distinguish between the roles of principals and parties in the context of the crime of aggravated robbery. The judge failed to clarify that the appellant could only be guilty as a party, not a principal, and did not sufficiently direct the jury on the specific elements the Crown needed to prove to establish the appellant's guilt as a party. This omission was significant, as it potentially led the jury to convict the appellant based on insufficient legal grounds. Additionally, the court noted that the judge's general comments on inferences did not sufficiently focus the jury on the specific inferences relevant to the case, which further complicated the jury's task. Although the breach of s 366 by the Crown counsel was identified, the court deemed it not to be a substantial error that would affect the outcome of the trial.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered that no retrial should follow. The court's decision was grounded in the belief that the errors in the summing up and the direction on inferences led to a miscarriage of justice, thus justifying the quashing of the conviction. The appeal against the sentence was not considered necessary due to the outcome on the conviction appeal.

Orders