Legal Research
Cases
R v Rongonui

R v Rongonui

Case [2009] NZCA 279 2 July 2009

Admissibility of Evidence

Identification Direction

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

REISSUED ON 7 SEPTEMBER 2009 PURSUANT TO MINUTE OF THE COURT DATED 7 SEPTEMBER 2009
PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY SECTION 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF MS X.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA736/2008
CA749/2008 [2009] NZCA 279

THE QUEEN

v

MAIA RONGONUI

Hearing: 23 February 2009
Court: William Young P, Chisholm and Heath JJ Counsel: N Levy for Appellant
P K Feltham for Respondent

Judgment: 2 July 2009 at 11.30 am

Reissued 7 September 2009 : see recall judgment of 7 September 2009

Effective date of judgment: 2 July 2009

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

R V MAIA RONGONUI CA CA736/2008 [2 July 2009]

A The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

BThe Solicitor-General’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted. The appeal is allowed. The sentence of four years’ imprisonment is set aside. A sentence of imprisonment of six years is substituted, in its place.

C Order prohibiting publication of name or identifying particulars of
Ms X.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Heath J)

Contents

Introduction  [1] The appeals  [3] The cases for the Crown and Mr Rongonui at trial  [5] “Recent complaint” evidence
(a)   Background  [19]
(b)   The nature of the “recent complaint” evidence  [26] (c) Was the evidence admissible?  [37] The prior statement of Ms X
(a) Was the Judge correct to allow the prosecutor to use the
statement to refresh Ms X’s memory?  [52] (b)   Leading questions to elicit content of prior statement  [68] Identification direction  [77] Remaining grounds of appeal  [82] Solicitor-General’s appeal against sentence  [87] Result  [96]

Introduction

[1] Mr Rongonui was charged with one count of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and one of assault with intent to commit rape. After a trial in the District Court at Christchurch, before Judge Farish and a jury, he was convicted on both counts and sentenced to an effective term of four years imprisonment.

[2] Mr Rongonui appeals against conviction. The Solicitor-General seeks leave to appeal against sentence.

The appeals

[3] Ms Levy, for Mr Rongonui, advances the following grounds of appeal: (a) The Judge erred in admitting “recent complaint” evidence.
(b)Mr Rongonui’s female relative (Ms X) ought not to have been allowed to refer to a statement that she made to the Police (some six weeks after an alleged conversation with Mr Rongonui) for the purposes of refreshing her memory. Ms Levy submits that the statement was not “fresh”. In that statement, Ms X said that Mr Rongonui had made admissions to her about what happened.

(c) The Judge erred in giving an identification direction in relation to the reliability of a witness at or near the scene.

(d)The Judge gave confusing directions to the jury in respect of Crown submissions as to motive and lies.

(e) The Judge was unfairly critical of defence counsel when summing up to the jury.

[4] Ms Feltham,…

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 Rongonui

Details

AGLC: R v Rongonui [2009] NZCA 279
Case: [2009] NZCA 279
Decision Date: 2 July 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this appeal, Maia Rongonui was convicted on two counts, one of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and one of assault with intent to commit rape. The Crown's case was that Rongonui and the complainant, a young female Australian, were out walking in Christchurch when Rongonui sexually assaulted the complainant. Rongonui's case was that the complainant had consented to sexual activity and that they had had sex. The trial judge found Rongonui guilty on both counts and sentenced him to an effective term of four years imprisonment. Rongonui appeals against his conviction, and the Solicitor-General seeks leave to appeal against sentence. Rongonui's grounds of appeal are that the trial judge erred in admitting "recent complaint" evidence, in allowing a witness to refresh her memory from a prior statement, in giving an identification direction and in summarising Crown submissions as to motive and lies. The Solicitor-General's appeal is that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and wrong in principle. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. The appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of four years imprisonment is set aside and a sentence of six years imprisonment is substituted.

Orders