R v La Mont - [2016] NZHC 2095

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2015-004-12652 [2016] NZHC 2095

THE QUEEN

v

DUSTIN MICHAEL LA MONT

Hearing: 18 August 2016

Counsel:

B Dickey and M Hammer for Crown
D Hoskins for Mr La Mont

Judgment:

6 September 2016

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 September 2016 at 2.15 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors / Counsel: Meredith Connell, Auckland David Hoskin, Ponsonby

R v LA MONT [2016] NZHC 2095 [6 September 2016]

[1] Mr La Mont has pleaded not guilty to one count of murder and one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm after an incident at his neighbours’ home in Mt Albert, Auckland.

[2] The Crown applies under s 101 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (“CPA”) for rulings on the admissibility of evidence that it seeks to adduce at Mr La Mont’s trial: namely, Mr La Mont’s posts on the social media site, Twitter (“Twitter evidence”); and his collection of knives, swords and other offensive weapons (“weapons evidence”).

[3] The defence applies for an order under s 30 of the CPA seeking disclosure of intercepted communications between the occupants of 21 Renton Road, Mt Albert, in the period following the homicide. Other defence requests for disclosure have been resolved as between counsel.

Factual background

[4] The following overview of the allegations against Mr La Mont has been taken from the police caption summary. The allegations have not been proven at trial and are disputed by Mr La Mont.

[5] At the material times Mr La Mont was living at 19 Renton Road in Mt Albert, Auckland. At 12.10 am on Thursday 3 December 2015, Mr La Mont was walking along Renton Road and observing the occupants in the neighbouring property, who were having a small gathering. Two men who had been present at the gathering came out onto the road and approached Mr La Mont to determine his interest in their address.

[6] Mr La Mont denied any interest and then swung out at one of the men with a knife that he had been concealing behind his back. He struck the first victim in the left side of his neck, severing the carotid artery. Mr La Mont then approached the second victim and struck him to the right side of his neck, causing a deep wound. The first victim died at the scene and the second victim was transported to Auckland Hospital for emergency surgery.

[7] When spoken to by police a few days later, Mr La Mont admitted the facts as outlined above but claimed that he had acted in self-defence. He said that the victims had approached him from the house and…

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 La Mont

Details

AGLC: R v La Mont [2016] NZHC 2095
Case: [2016] NZHC 2095
Decision Date: 6 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v La Mont, the High Court considered the admissibility of certain evidence under the Evidence Act 2006, including social media posts and a collection of weapons. The Crown sought to introduce the evidence to demonstrate the defendant's state of mind and intent at the time of the offence. The court found that certain tweets were relevant and probative of the defendant's state of mind on the night of the incident, and therefore admissible under section 7 of the Evidence Act. However, the court ruled that the remaining tweets and the collection of weapons were either too general, too prejudicial, or lacked probative value, and therefore inadmissible. The court also directed that certain intercepted communications be disclosed to the defence, as they contained relevant information that would assist in preparing an effective defence.

Orders