R v Uasi - [2009] NZCA 236

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

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF RETRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA731/2008 [2009] NZCA 236

THE QUEEN

v

WILLIAM INOKE UASI

Hearing: 27 May 2009
Court: Hammond, Ronald Young and Clifford JJ Counsel: K S Holden for Appellant
N P Chisnall for Crown

Judgment: 16 June 2009 at 2.15 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A.The appeal against conviction on causing grievous bodily harm is allowed and the conviction and sentence are quashed. A retrial is ordered.

B. The appeal against conviction on attempting to pervert the course of justice is dismissed.

R V UASI CA CA731/2008 [16 June 2009]

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Clifford J)

Introduction

[1] Mr Uasi, the appellant, was found guilty by a jury in the District Court on charges of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so and wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice. Mr Uasi now appeals his convictions. Mr Uasi says that the Judge erred in law by including in his summing up an identification warning under s 126 of the Evidence Act 2006. Alternatively, if the Judge did not err in giving that warning, it did not comply with s 126. Mr Uasi says further that he was unfairly prejudiced when evidence the Crown referred to in its opening was not, in fact, given at trial. Mr Uasi argues finally that the jury verdict is unreliable, being against the weight of evidence.

[2] Mr Uasi had also originally appealed against his sentence. Although Ms Holden did not formally discontinue that appeal prior to the hearing, at the hearing she indicated that she would not be pursuing that matter. At the hearing we therefore dismissed Mr Uasi’s appeal against his sentence on the charge of causing grievous bodily harm.

Background

[3] In the early morning hours of 24 September 2006, a fight broke out outside a party which Mr Uasi was attending in Waimumu Road, Massey, Auckland. During the fracas that resulted, Mr Christopher Adamson was knocked to the ground and repeatedly struck with a metal pole. As a result, Mr Adamson sustained severe facial injuries and lacerations to his head which required a lengthy stay in hospital and extensive reconstruction surgery.

[4] There was no issue at the trial as to whether those events had occurred. The issue at trial was whether Mr Uasi was, as alleged by the Crown, the person who had beaten Mr Adamson around the head with a metal pole.

[5] The principal witnesses for the Crown, as regards the factual elements of the allegations against Mr Uasi, were Moana Cotterell and Evander Feleti. Ms Cotterell went to the party with her boyfriend, Rhys Reti, and Mr Uasi. She gave evidence of seeing “Willie” hitting a man, who was lying on the ground, about the head with…

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 Uasi

Details

AGLC: R v Uasi [2009] NZCA 236
Case: [2009] NZCA 236
Decision Date: 16 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, William Inoke Uasi appealed his conviction on charges of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand allowed the appeal against the conviction for causing grievous bodily harm, quashed the conviction and sentence, and ordered a retrial. The appeal against the conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice was dismissed. The Court found that the trial judge erred in law by not including a warning about the risk of a serious miscarriage of justice in the identification warning under s 126 of the Evidence Act 2006. However, the Court concluded that it was not appropriate to rely on the proviso in s 385(1) of the Crimes Act, as the Crown case essentially relied on one eyewitness. The issues of identification did not affect the evidence for the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The appeal against the conviction for this charge was dismissed.

The Court found that the Crown's opening statement was unfairly prejudicial, but this did not form a valid ground for challenging the conviction. The Court also rejected the argument that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The Court noted that the inconsistencies within the Crown's case were inconsequential and the trial judge had dealt with the difficulties arising from violent episodes involving large numbers of people in his summing up.

Orders