R v Vaka - [2007] NZCA 158

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND THE REASONS THEREFOR IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN A LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST IS, HOWEVER, PERMITTED.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA71/07 [2007] NZCA 158

THE QUEEN

v

ANOTI VAKA

Hearing: 29 March 2007
Court: Chambers, Chisholm and Gendall JJ Counsel: C L Mander for Crown
D H Quilliam for Respondent

Judgment: 27 April 2007 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The appeal is allowed and Ms Terry’s evidence is ruled to be admissible. C Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and the reasons therefor

in news media or on Internet or other publicly accessibly database until final disposition of trial. Publication in a law report or law digest is,
however, permitted.

R V VAKA CA CA71/07 27 April 2007

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Chisholm J)

[1] The respondent faces one charge of attempted murder and an alternative charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. These charges arise from an alleged attack by the respondent upon his 18-year-old daughter. In a pre-trial ruling Heath J held that admissions made by the respondent to a social worker were inadmissible. The Crown seeks leave to appeal against that ruling.

Background

[2] On 22 September 2006 the respondent travelled from Hawke’s Bay to Te Puke with his daughter, Claire Vaka (the complainant), and his daughter’s friend, Tracey Lenden. They stayed in Te Puke with the respondent’s brother, Toni Vaka, and his wife, Taari Tebwebwe.

[3] Around midnight on 23 September the complainant asked her father if she and her friend could go to a party that they had been told about by some boys. An argument developed when he declined her request. From that point there are diverging accounts of the events that followed.

[4] According to the complainant she started to swear at her father who responded by slapping her face. The respondent then said that he did not know why he and his wife had brought the complainant into the world. This prompted the following exchange:

Complainant: I don’t care, you should kill me.

Respondent: Why would I kill you, I would rather kill myself. Complainant: Then don’t complain.
Respondent: Shut up.

The complainant said that she then saw a knife lying on a nearby table and indicated to her father: “There you go, there’s a knife” following which he picked up the knife and slashed at her. Although she saw the blow coming and moved backwards, she was cut on the forehead.

[5] The complainant continues that her uncle then took the knife off her father, following which her father said he was sorry and that he was going to kill himself. Later she saw her father crying, told him not to be sorry, and sat beside him until he fell asleep. The following day she declined her father’s offer to take her…

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 Vaka

Details

AGLC: R v Vaka [2007] NZCA 158
Case: [2007] NZCA 158
Decision Date: 27 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Vaka, the respondent faced charges of attempted murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm after allegedly attacking his 18-year-old daughter. The Crown sought leave to appeal against a pre-trial ruling by Heath J that admissions made by the respondent to a social worker, Ms Trixie Terry, were inadmissible. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ruled that Ms Terry's evidence was admissible. The Court found that there was no justification for excluding the evidence on the basis of probative value versus prejudicial effect, nor on the basis that the evidence was unfairly obtained or so unreliable that it should be excluded. The Court held that the evidence had considerable probative value, and that the jury would be well placed to assess the reliability of the evidence. The Court also found that there was nothing about the circumstances surrounding the making of the respondent's statement that could justify the conclusion that the statement was unfairly obtained. The Court rejected the argument that the evidence was so unreliable that it should be excluded, noting that the evidence did not necessarily suggest that the respondent's state of mind was such that he was delusional and that his admissions to Ms Terry were unreliable.

Orders