R v Ratima - [2016] NZHC 2722

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

CRI-2016-019-002881 [2016] NZHC 2722

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN

Applicant

AND

KINGI RATIMA Defendant

Hearing: 10 November 2016

Appearances:

S F Gilbert for Applicant
A-M Beveridge for Defendant

Judgment:

14 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 14 November 2016 at 3.00 pm
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date………………………..

THE QUEEN v RATIMA [2016] NZHC 2722 [14 November 2016]

Introduction

[1] At about 5 am on 15 May 2016 Kingi Ratima approached the complainant on Victoria Street in central Hamilton and asked for money. When the complainant walked away Mr Ratima struck him from behind and threw him to the ground. He punched him repeatedly in the head before stomping on his head twice. Mr Ratima then searched the complainant’s pockets, took a mobile phone and charging cable and ran from the scene. He was located shortly afterwards, a block away and still in possession of the complainant’s phone and charger.

[2] As a result of this incident, which was captured on CCTV, Mr Ratima faces one charge of robbery, with alternative charges of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and theft. The only issue on the robbery charge is whether
Mr Ratima intended to permanently deprive the complainant of his property. The Crown wishes to adduce Mr Ratima’s previous convictions for robbery as propensity evidence.

Proposed propensity evidence

[3] Mr Ratima has two previous convictions for robbery. The first occurred in central Hamilton on 14 May 2014. At about 8 pm Mr Ratima approached a man who was sitting in a parked car. He demanded that the victim hand over his car. The victim refused and told Mr Ratima that he was going to call the police. Mr Ratima then demanded the victim’s phone. When he refused that demand Mr Ratima reached into
the car, dragged the victim out onto the road, got into the driver’s seat and drove away.

[4] The second robbery also occurred in central Hamilton. At 5.30 pm on

25 November 2014 Mr Ratima approached a man who was sitting on a park bench and asked for money. When the victim said he had no money Mr Ratima attempted to snatch his phone. The victim held onto his phone. Mr Ratima then punched the victim in the chest causing him to fall backwards onto the bench. Mr Ratima demanded that the victim either give him money or get some from an ATM machine. The victim

handed over 10 Singaporean dollars. Mr Ratima responded by again demanding money and threatened to kill the victim. The victim finally handed over NZ$10 and Mr Ratima left.

[5] Mr Ratima was sentenced on 15 June…

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 Ratima

Details

AGLC: R v Ratima [2016] NZHC 2722
Case: [2016] NZHC 2722
Decision Date: 14 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Ratima [2016] NZHC 2722 involved the defendant, Kingi Ratima, who was charged with robbery, with alternative charges of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and theft. The incident in question occurred in central Hamilton, where Ratima approached a complainant on Victoria Street and demanded money. When the complainant refused and walked away, Ratima struck him from behind, threw him to the ground, punched him repeatedly in the head, and stomped on his head twice. Ratima then searched the complainant's pockets, took his mobile phone and charging cable, and fled the scene. Ratima was subsequently located, still in possession of the complainant's phone and charger.

The primary legal issue in the case was whether Ratima intended to permanently deprive the complainant of his property, an essential element for the charge of robbery. The Crown sought to introduce Ratima's previous convictions for robbery as propensity evidence to demonstrate Ratima's intent in the current charges. Ratima's defence argued that the evidence would unfairly prejudice the jury by reinforcing the notion that he has a bad character.

The court considered section 43 of the Evidence Act 2006, which governs the admissibility of propensity evidence. The court determined that the probative value of the evidence outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice, primarily due to the specific similarities between Ratima's previous and current offending, the location, and the targeting of lone male victims. The court found that the evidence would assist the jury in understanding Ratima's state of mind during the current incident, which could not be discerned from the CCTV footage. Furthermore, the court concluded that the risk of unfair prejudice could be mitigated through appropriate jury direction on the relevance and proper use of the evidence.

In conclusion, the court granted the Crown's application to adduce Ratima's previous convictions as propensity evidence, finding that the probative value of the evidence outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice.

Orders