R v Rangirangi - [2023] NZHC 730

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-092-7343

[2023] NZHC 730

THE KING

v

NUI RANGIRANGI

Hearing: 27 March 2023

Counsel:

C Piho and C Fountain for Crown

S Withers and V Tava for Defendant

Judgment:

4 April 2023

ORAL JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

(Re: Verdict and reasons)

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

R v RANGIRANGI [2023] NZHC 730 [4 April 2023]

[1] Mr Rangirangi is charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

[2]The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt:

(a)that on 23 July 2020 Mr Rangirangi used a knife to cause grievous bodily harm to the complainant, Mr Jolson Cocker; and

(b)that at the time Mr Rangirangi caused grievous bodily harm to Mr Cocker, he intended to do so.

[3] The key issue in the trial is identity. Was it Mr Rangirangi who was responsible for what happened to Mr Cocker?

Did Mr Rangirangi cause grievous bodily harm to Mr Cocker?

Jolson Cocker

[4] Mr Cocker lived in a Grace Foundation boarding house in Mangere with a number of men, including the other two civilian witnesses in this case.

[5] Mr Cocker said in evidence that he had a fist fight on the road outside the boarding house with a man who also lived in the boarding house. He said he won that fight which was over an amount of $50. During the fight he punched that man in the face a number of times causing that man to fall to the ground.

[6] Mr Cocker said he went inside the boarding house and the man who he had the fight with got angry and went and got a knife and stabbed Mr Cocker with it.

[7] Mr Cocker initially said he received only a tiny stab wound, pointing to his lower left rib cage area. He said the wound had to be stitched and he still had a scar. Mr Cocker said he could not remember being stabbed “in the back and like” and that he had made a statement to the police at Middlemore Hospital when his memory was fresh about being stabbed. He agreed it would help him to read the statement “but it’s gonna be like memories of hard times. Struggling and stuff”.

[8] On application from the Crown I granted leave for the witness to refer to his statement to refresh his memory about details of the stabbing incident. The defence objected on the grounds that the evidence was not reliable, that Mr Cocker’s memory was unreliable and the statement itself was unreliable. The statement had not been excluded. It was made and signed by Mr Cocker when his memory was fresh and, on the face of it, it was reliable. I allowed Mr Cocker to consult the statement to the limited extent sought by the Crown.

[9] Mr Cocker then confirmed he made the statement to Detective Nieh on 24 July 2020 commencing at 1.58 am…

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 Rangirangi

Details

AGLC: R v Rangirangi [2023] NZHC 730
Case: [2023] NZHC 730
Decision Date: 4 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr. Nui Rangirangi was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, following an incident on 23 July 2020. The case hinged on whether Mr. Rangirangi was the person who stabbed Mr. Jolson Cocker, and if he intended to cause grievous bodily harm. The Crown needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Rangirangi used a knife to inflict grievous bodily harm on Mr. Cocker and that at the time, he intended to do so.

The court found that Mr. Cocker's evidence was credible, despite some inconsistencies and vagueness, largely due to his reluctance to testify against Mr. Rangirangi and difficulty in revisiting the incident. The court accepted Mr. Cocker's identification of Mr. Rangirangi as the assailant, based on a photo board montage and a formal identification procedure. Additionally, Mr. Raymond Edwards' testimony corroborated Mr. Cocker's account, stating he saw Mr. Rangirangi and Mr. Cocker fighting and later found a knife at the scene. Forensic evidence, including bloodstains on Mr. Rangirangi's shoes and the knife used in the stabbing, further supported the Crown's case.

The court concluded that Mr. Rangirangi did indeed stab Mr. Cocker, causing grievous bodily harm, and that he intended to do so, given the number, location, and nature of the wounds. The defence's argument of self-defence was not pursued, and the court found that stabbing Mr. Cocker five times could not be considered reasonable force. Consequently, Mr. Rangirangi was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

The final orders of the court were that Mr. Rangirangi be remanded for sentencing on 23 May 2023, with a pre-sentence report to be provided, and a cultural report to be obtained by the defence.

Orders