R v Ranchhod - [2009] NZCA 340

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA204/2009
[2009] NZCA 340
THE QUEEN
v
PRAVIN NANA RANCHHOD
Hearing:28 July 2009

Court:Hammond, Ronald Young and Simon France JJ
Counsel:A F Rickard-Simms for Appellant

M E Ball for Crown

Judgment:5 August 2009 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against both conviction and sentence is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Simon France J)
Introduction
[1]       Mr Ranchhod operates a corner store in Petone. In late December 2006, Mr Ranchhod’s store, and his attached private residence, were the subject of a search undertaken pursuant to a warrant. A large number of items, totalling around 200, were seized. They included blankets, clothing, and cameras. Many were in their original packing. The suspicion was that the goods were stolen.
[2]       As it happens, of the items seized, seven were established as having been stolen. Of these, three became the subject of charges. It was alleged that Mr Ranchhod had received them, being reckless as to whether they were stolen. The first count in the indictment concerned a laptop computer. It was the subject of a successful pre‑trial application under s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961. Consequently, Mr Ranchhod stood trial on a single count which alleged that he had received two cameras.
[3]       The jury found Mr Ranchhod guilty. He was sentenced to a modest fine and ordered to pay $800 reparation. Mr Ranchhod appeals both conviction and sentence.
[4]       Concerning the conviction, the first appeal ground is that evidence of the search, and of the other items seized pursuant to it, was improperly led.   This created a climate of prejudice. Secondly, Judge Mackintosh in her summing up did not adequately set out what the jury was to do with this evidence, and failed to focus the jury on the actual charges. And thirdly, originally, that trial counsel’s conduct of the hearing, and advice to Mr Ranchhod, raised issues of trial competency. Affidavits having been filed, that last ground of appeal is abandoned.
[5]       In relation to sentence it is said Judge Behrens erred in declining to grant Mr Ranchhod a discharge without conviction, such error stemming from a misappreciation of the impact a conviction would have on Mr Ranchhod’s liquor off‑licence.
Ground one – inadmissible evidence
[6]       As noted, when Mr Ranchhod’s property was searched, a large number of items were seized. Plainly the suspicion was that the goods were stolen property that Mr Ranchhod had bought for on‑sale.
[7]       The criticism made at trial is that despite only being charged with receiving two cameras, evidence was nevertheless led by the prosecution that the search took a long time, that nearly 200 items were seized and that it took two vans to remove them.
[8]       The potential for prejudice to arise from reference to all this other material is obvious. There is a risk of fostering a climate where it is being inferred that the real picture of dishonesty is much bigger than these two cameras. Further,…

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 Ranchhod

Details

AGLC: R v Ranchhod [2009] NZCA 340
Case: [2009] NZCA 340
Decision Date: 5 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard the appeal of Pravin Nana Ranchhod, who was convicted of receiving stolen property and sentenced to a fine and reparation. Ranchhod operated a corner store and his private residence were searched and numerous items seized. Seven items were confirmed as stolen, with Ranchhod charged for receiving two cameras. The appeal contested both the conviction and the sentence, arguing that evidence of the search and other seized items prejudiced the jury, that the summing up did not adequately address this evidence, and that the sentencing judge erred in not granting a discharge without conviction considering the impact on Ranchhod's liquor license. The court found that the evidence of the search was necessary for the defence's strategy and that the summing up sufficiently cautioned the jury. The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the court held that the sentencing judge properly considered the consequences of the conviction and the sentence was not disproportionate to the offence. The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.

Orders