R v Peters - [2018] NZHC 855

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

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-092-008415

[2018] NZHC 855

THE QUEEN

v

PAUL PETERS

Hearing: 30 April 2018

Appearances:

G R Kayes and H Benson-Pope for Crown B T Vaili and S D Cassidy for Defendant

Judgment:

30 April 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker Limited, Auckland Public Defence Service, Manukau

R v PETERS [2018] NZHC 855 [30 April 2018]

Introduction

[1] Paul Henry Ngamara Peters faces charges for aggravated robbery,1 and receiving over $1000.2 His trial is scheduled to begin on 8 October 2018 in the Auckland High Court.

[2] One of the victims of the aggravated robbery, Jagjit Singh, encountered Mr Peters by chance some two months after the robbery, and immediately identified him (rightly or wrongly) as one of the offenders. Mr Singh’s friend took a photo of Mr Peters as they walked past him.

[3] The Crown now seeks an order under s 101 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 this visual identification evidence be admitted at trial. Defence counsel opposes on grounds the evidence is on the balance of probabilities unreliable, and its probative value outweighed by its unfair prejudice to Mr Peters.

Background

[4] On the evening of 28 June 2017, an aggravated robbery occurred at an address on Franklin Avenue, Papatoetoe. This incident was part of a wider spree of four aggravated robberies in June and July 2017, targeting the addresses of Indian students.

—the Crown case

[5] The Crown’s case is these robberies were organised by co-defendants Hakeke Nuku and Gagandeep Dhillon, the Indian students all being associated with Mr Dhillon in some way.

[6] It is alleged Mr Peters was engaged by Mr Nuku to take part in the burglary at Franklin Avenue. (Mr Peters is also charged with receiving property after a burglary at Galilee Avenue, but this pre-trial application does not concern that charge.) Mr Peters is alleged to have assisted Mr Nuku in taking the property from the address, and then on-selling it.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 235(b). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 246 and 247. Maximum penalty 7 years’ imprisonment.

[7]The summary of facts describes the offending as follows:

(a)Mr Peters arrived at the address with his co-offenders – Mr Nuku, Pounamu Kinghazel and an unknown associate – at approximately 8.40pm. Mr Nuku was armed with a knife;

(b)they asked for Harpreet Singh. When he appeared, they confronted him. Mr Nuku presented a knife at him and demanded $20,000;

(c)the ten people at the address at the time were directed into the lounge;

(d)Mr Nuku took Harpreet Singh out of the lounge into other rooms. The house was searched, and various items (electronic items and bank card)…

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 Peters

Details

AGLC: R v Peters [2018] NZHC 855
Case: [2018] NZHC 855
Decision Date: 30 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paul Henry Ngamara Peters faces charges for aggravated robbery and receiving over $1000. The case involves a series of aggravated robberies targeting Indian students in Auckland. One of the victims, Jagjit Singh, identified Peters as one of the offenders in a chance encounter two months after the crime. The Crown seeks an order to admit visual identification evidence at trial, which the defence opposes on grounds of unreliability and unfair prejudice.

The legal issues revolve around the admissibility of visual identification evidence under s 101 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and whether the evidence is unreliable and prejudicial. The court must determine if there was a "good reason" for not following a formal identification procedure, and if the evidence is unreliable on the balance of probabilities. The court also considers whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs any unfair prejudice to the defendant.

The court found there was a "good reason" for not following a formal identification procedure, as the encounter was a chance meeting. The court rejected the defence argument that the delay in reporting the encounter undermined the reliability of the evidence. In assessing reliability, the court considered factors such as the confidence of the witness, the duration of observation, and any discrepancies in the witness's statements. The court found the evidence reliable despite some minor discrepancies, as the witness had a clear opportunity to observe Peters during the crime and had a photograph to confirm his identification. The court also concluded that any prejudice caused by the evidence was outweighed by its probative value.

The visual identification evidence is admissible under s 101 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

Orders