R v Te Pania - [2007] NZCA 429

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA317/07 [2007] NZCA 429

THE QUEEN

v

SHANNON TE PANIA

Hearing: 18 September 2007
Court: Ellen France, John Hansen and Wild JJ Counsel: N J Sainsbury and P H Mitchell for Appellant
A Markham for Crown

Judgment: 4 October 2007 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is declined and the appeal is dismissed.

BOrder prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on Internet or other

R V TE PANIA CA CA317/07 4 October 2007

publicly accessible database until final disposition of trial. Publication in

Law Report or Law Digest permitted.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellen France J)

Introduction

[1] The appellant is to be tried on an indictment charging ten counts in the week beginning 29 October 2007. He seeks leave to appeal against a pre-trial ruling of Judge Radford delivered on 31 May 2007 refusing severance: DC WN CRI-2006-085-3282 31 May 2007.

Background

[2] The appellant faces ten counts, namely count one assault with a weapon (a knife); count two intentional damage (involving a knife); count three threatening to cause grievous bodily harm; count four threatening to kill; count five kidnapping; count six being armed with an offensive weapon (a knife), assaulting with intent to rob; count seven kidnapping; count eight being warmed with an offensive weapon (a knife), assaulting with intent to rob; count nine wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm; and count ten having in his possession an offensive weapon, namely, a knife in circumstances that prima facie showed an intention to use it to commit an offence involving fear or violence.

[3] The charges arise out of a series of incidents occurring over a period of an hour, possibly less, on the evening of 20 May 2006. The appellant was aged
17 years at the time. The allegations as at depositions are summarised by the

District Court Judge as follows:

[4] ... In summary, they allege that the [appellant] and two companions travelled from Johnsonville to Wellington on the afternoon of 20 May 2006. Prior to leaving Johnsonville one of the [appellant’s] companions had in his possession a knife, which either during the journey or in Wellington, came

into possession of the [appellant]. The [appellant] and his companions were drinking during the trip.

[5] The offending started when a shop manager, having been alerted to the behaviour of either the [appellant] or his male companion, saw the [appellant] attack a passing utility causing damage to the fabric cover on the tray. The attack was confirmed by the driver of the utility and a passenger.

[6] Following this, the [appellant] got into an argument with a number of…

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 Te Pania

Details

AGLC: R v Te Pania [2007] NZCA 429
Case: [2007] NZCA 429
Decision Date: 4 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Te Pania, the appellant, Shannon Te Pania, sought leave to appeal against a ruling by Judge Radford, delivered on 31 May 2007, which refused severance of the ten counts in the indictment against him. Te Pania is facing ten charges arising from a series of incidents occurring over an hour on 20 May 2006. These charges include assault with a weapon, intentional damage, threatening to cause grievous bodily harm, kidnapping, and being armed with an offensive weapon with intent to commit robbery or cause fear. Te Pania argues that the incidents are separate and should be tried in three different trials to avoid prejudice and unnecessary repetition of evidence.

The court considered the arguments put forth by Te Pania's counsel, N J Sainsbury. The legal issue before the court was whether severance of the counts should have been ordered under section 340(3) of the Crimes Act 1961. The court found that the incidents were interconnected and formed a continuous course of conduct, which should be presented as a whole to avoid artificial separation of events. The court also found that there was no error in the approach taken by the District Court Judge, and that the balance between probative value and prejudicial effect had been adequately considered.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal declined leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. An order was made prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly accessible database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in Law Report or Law Digest was permitted.

Orders