R v Patangata - [2018] NZHC 3298

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 HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2018-019-001105

[2018] NZHC 3298

IN THE MATTER OF Crown application under s 101 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 for admissibility of propensity evidence

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

Plaintiff

AND

TENESHIAH PUHINAHINA PATANGATA

Defendant

Hearing: 10 December 2018

Appearances:

L Dunn for Plaintiff

M J Dyhrberg QC for Defendant

Judgment:

14 December 2018

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 14 December 2018 at 11.00 am
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Date ………………………..

R v PATANGATA [2018] NZHC 3298 [14 December 2018]

Introduction

[1] The defendant has been charged with murdering her former partner. The Crown case alleges that she stabbed him in the neck during an argument at a party. The issues at trial will be whether it was the defendant who stabbed the deceased and, if so, whether she had the requisite murderous intent.

[2] The Crown has applied to adduce propensity evidence of the defendant’s two previous convictions involving the use of a knife. The defendant opposes the application on two grounds: first, the evidence does not show a tendency to act in a particular way and, secondly, that it has only low to moderate relevance to the issues in dispute and is outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial effect.

Propensity evidence: s 43 of the Evidence Act 2006

[3] Under s 43, the prosecution may offer evidence, known as propensity evidence that “tends to show a person’s propensity to act in a particular way or to have a particular state of mind”.1 Section 43 provides that:
(1) The prosecution may offer propensity evidence about a defendant in a criminal proceeding only if the evidence has a probative value in relation to an issue in dispute in the proceeding which outweighs the risk that the evidence may have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the defendant.

(2) When assessing the probative value of propensity evidence, the Judge must take into account the nature of the issue in dispute.

(3) When assessing the probative value of propensity evidence, the Judge may consider, among other matters, the following:

(a)the frequency with which the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence have occurred:

(b)the connection in time between the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence and the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which constitute the offence for which the defendant is being tried:

(c)the extent of the similarity between the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence and the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which constitute the offence for which the defendant is being tried:

1 Evidence Act 2006,…

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 Patangata

Details

AGLC: R v Patangata [2018] NZHC 3298
Case: [2018] NZHC 3298
Decision Date: 14 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Patangata, the defendant was charged with murdering her former partner, an offence that allegedly occurred during an argument at a party. The Crown sought to introduce propensity evidence, comprising the defendant's two prior convictions involving the use of a knife, to bolster their case. The defendant contested the admissibility of this evidence on two grounds: firstly, that it did not demonstrate a tendency to act in a particular way or to have a particular state of mind; and secondly, that its relevance was minimal to the issues at hand, and its prejudicial effect was disproportionately high. The court had to determine whether the propensity evidence was admissible under section 43 of the Evidence Act 2006, which allows for such evidence only if its probative value outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant.

The court found that the propensity evidence, despite the differences in context between the previous incidents and the alleged offence, did reveal a specific tendency for the defendant to use a knife when drunk and angry. The judge held that the incidents, although occurring in different settings, shared sufficient similarities to establish a pattern of behaviour. The probative value of the evidence was deemed to be moderate, given the relevance to the issues of whether the defendant was the one who stabbed the deceased and if she had the requisite intent. The court also considered that while the evidence would inevitably prejudice the defendant, the extent of this prejudice was within acceptable bounds and could be managed through appropriate judicial direction. Consequently, the application to admit the propensity evidence was allowed.

The final orders of the court permitted the Crown to present the contested propensity evidence at the trial, subject to the judge's direction to the jury on its proper use. This decision underscores the careful balancing act required by the court in admitting propensity evidence, ensuring that its probative value justifies any prejudicial impact on the defendant.

Orders