R v Solomon - [2017] NZHC 2995

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-092-012807

[2017] NZHC 2995

THE QUEEN

v

DENIS ROBERT HENRY SOLOMON VINCENT MANA GEORGE

Hearing: 27 September 2017

Appearances:

N Walker and Y Yelavich for the Crown S Tait and J Hudson for Mr Solomon

A Simperingham and M Terekia for Mr George

Ruling:

28 September 2017

Reasons:

5 December 2017

REASONS FOR RULING OF HINTON J

[Application for discharge under s 147 Criminal Procedure Act 2011]

Counsel/Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau Shane Tait, Barrister, Manukau Woodward Chrisp, Gisborne

R v SOLOMON AND GEORGE [2017] NZHC 2995 [28 September 2017]

[1] At the conclusion of the Crown case on 27 September 2017, the defendants applied for an order that Mr Solomon and Mr George be discharged under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. They advanced the application on the basis that no properly directed jury could reasonably convict the defendants of murder or manslaughter on the evidence adduced by the Crown.

[2] The Court of Appeal decision in Parris v Attorney-General makes it clear that trial Judges intervene in the factual arena only when, as a matter of law, the evidence is clearly such that the jury could not reasonably convict or any such conviction would not be supported by the evidence.1 Questions of credibility and weight must in “all but the most unusual or extreme circumstances” be decided by the jury.2

[3] After hearing submissions from counsel, I dismissed the application on 28 September 2017. I now give my reasons for doing so.

[4] I proceed on the basis of whether a jury could reasonably convict the defendants of murder, which encompasses the included charge of manslaughter.

The Crown case

[5] The Crown advances its case under s 167(b) and s 66(1) of the Crimes Act 1961.

[6] The Crown says that this was a case of a joint assault by Mr Solomon and Mr George which caused the death of Mr Ratima, where it is not clear which of the defendants was the principal and which was the party. Relying on principles set out in a series of cases,3 the Crown submits that in these circumstances, in order for party liability for the charge of murder to be established, it must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following:

1 Parris v Attorney-General [2004] 1 NZLR 519 (CA) at [13].
2 At [14]. See also R v Flyger [2001] 2 NZLR 721 (CA) at [15].
3 R v Witika (1991) 7 CRNZ 621 (CA); R v Renata [1992] 2 NZLR 346 (CA); Ahsin v R [2014] NZSC 153, [2015] 1 NZLR 493; Edmonds v R [2011] NZSC 159, [2012] 2 NZLR 445.

(a)Either Mr Solomon or Mr George or both intentionally assaulted the deceased (allegedly a concerted attack to the head and neck) causing bodily injury and later his death.

(b)Either Mr Solomon or Mr George intentionally assisted the other in the assault, in this case…

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 Solomon

Details

AGLC: R v Solomon [2017] NZHC 2995
Case: [2017] NZHC 2995
Decision Date: 5 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Solomon was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Auckland, where Denis Robert Henry Solomon and Vincent Mana George faced charges of murder and manslaughter. The defendants applied for a discharge under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, arguing that the evidence presented by the Crown was insufficient for a properly directed jury to convict them. The Crown argued that the defendants jointly assaulted the deceased, Mr Ratima, leading to his death. The Court of Appeal decision in Parris v Attorney-General was cited, stating that trial judges should only intervene when the evidence is such that the jury could not reasonably convict or any such conviction would not be supported by the evidence. The Court dismissed the application, finding that the evidence provided, particularly from key witness TH Grace, was sufficient for a jury to reasonably convict the defendants. The Court noted that the credibility and reliability of the evidence were matters for the jury to decide.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the defendants' joint liability for the murder and manslaughter of Mr Ratima. The Crown had to prove that the defendants either intentionally assaulted Mr Ratima, assisted in the assault, or had the necessary murderous intent. The Court found that the evidence presented, particularly from TH Grace, was sufficient to establish the defendants' involvement in the assault. The Court dismissed the defendants' argument that the Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Solomon killed Mr Ratima. The Court concluded that the evidence, including that from TH Grace and medical evidence, was sufficient for a jury to reasonably convict the defendants. The Court also rejected the argument that the Crown could not exclude the possibility that the violence attested to by Mr Grace was committed by an "other man." The Court found that the evidence was sufficient for the trial to continue, leaving questions of credibility and reliability to the jury.

Orders