R v Toru - [2018] NZHC 1144

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2017-043-1229

[2018] NZHC 1144

THE QUEEN

v

TEINA TORU

Hearing: 14-18 May; 21-22 May 2018

Counsel:

C E Clarke and J E Bourke for Crown T T Bolstad for defendant

Verdict:

22 May 2018

REASONS FOR VERDICT OF DOBSON J

Contents

Background......................................................................................................................................................... [2]
The charges......................................................................................................................................................... [7]
The Crown case............................................................................................................................................... [11]
19 July 2017................................................................................................................................................. [12]
21 July 2017................................................................................................................................................. [19]
Complainant recanting.................................................................................................................................. [25]
The rest of the narrative............................................................................................................................... [41]
Statements to others....................................................................................................................................... [52]
Pressure to provide the recorded interview?........................................................................................... [58]
Confusion caused by PTSD........................................................................................................................... [64]
The elements of the 19 July charges.......................................................................................................... [71]
The elements of the 21 July charges.......................................................................................................... [83]
Attempting to pervert the course of justice.............................................................................................. [88]
Verdicts............................................................................................................................................................ [105]

R v TORU [2018] NZHC 1144 [22 May 2018]

[1] Mr Toru went to trial before me as a Judge sitting alone on 16 charges. These are set out at [7] and [8] below. At the outset of the trial, he pleaded guilty to a single count of assault with intent to injure.

Background

[2] All but one of the charges arose out of alleged violent and sexual offending committed on 19 July 2017 and alleged violent offending committed on 21 July 2017, in Mr Toru’s domestic relationship with the complainant.

[3] Mr Toru is a committed Seventh Day Adventist, studies biblical scriptures as they are focused on by that faith, and gives online counselling to others about the spiritual guidance provided by the Seventh Day Adventist faith. The complainant and members of her family adhered to the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith.

[4] The defendant and the complainant met online, and after initially spending about a week together in Taranaki in April 2017, Mr Toru decided to relocate to Taranaki in or about June 2017 to be with the complainant.

[5] They developed a vigorous sexual and emotional relationship. In about mid- July 2017, the complainant’s mother left her New Plymouth home to spend a period in Wellington and the complainant and Mr Toru moved in. On the complainant’s narrative provided in a recorded interview with Police on 29 July 2017, an argument developed on 19 July 2017 over the amount of time Mr Toru was spending conversing online with another woman. In reliance on the narrative in her interview, that argument led to the conduct giving rise to the nine charges against Mr Toru relating to 19 July 2017, as described below.

[6] The complainant spent time recovering on 20 July 2017. In her recorded interview, she then described a further series of confrontations on 21 July, which resulted in the six charges against Mr Toru allegedly arising on that day, as also described below.

The charges

[7]The charges brought in respect of the conduct on 19 July 2017 comprised:

· one each of kidnapping, assault with intent to injure, male…

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 Toru

Details

AGLC: R v Toru [2018] NZHC 1144
Case: [2018] NZHC 1144
Decision Date: 22 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Teina Toru went to trial on 16 charges before Dobson J in the High Court of New Zealand, New Plymouth Registry. The charges arose from alleged violent and sexual offending on 19 July 2017 and further alleged violent offending on 21 July 2017, in Mr Toru’s domestic relationship with the complainant. The complainant had given a recorded interview to police in which she described the offending and these were the basis of the charges. Mr Toru pleaded guilty to one count of assault with intent to injure arising from an incident on 21 July 2017. The remaining 15 charges were contested. The complainant initially gave evidence at trial consistent with her recorded interview, but later gave evidence that she recanted the allegations in her recorded interview. The court had to decide whether the complainant’s recorded interview was an accurate description of the events on 19 and 21 July 2017, and whether the complainant’s evidence in court was credible. The court had to consider whether Mr Toru had committed the offences against the complainant and whether he had attempted to pervert the course of justice by pressuring the complainant to recant her recorded interview. The court found that the complainant’s recorded interview was a reliable account of what occurred on 19 and 21 July 2017. The complainant’s evidence in court that the offences did not occur was not credible. The court found that the complainant’s evidence that she had been pressured into making the recorded interview was not credible. The court found that Mr Toru had committed the offences against the complainant on 19 and 21 July 2017 and had attempted to pervert the course of justice by pressuring the complainant to recant her recorded interview. Mr Toru was found guilty of all charges.

Orders