R v W - [2024] NZHC 3402

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,

OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-219-000278

[2024] NZHC 3402

THE KING

v

W

Ruling: 14 November 2024

Counsel:

A M McClintock and K Nihill for Crown B J Hunt and H de Groot for Defendant

Reasons:

15 November 2024

SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR RULING (3) OF LANG J

[jury communication received at 3.26 pm on 13 November 2024]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 15 November 2024 at 11.00 am
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland B J Hunt/H de Groot Auckland

R v W [2024] NZHC 3402 [15 November 2024]

[1] W is standing trial on a charge of murder. He contends the Crown cannot disprove that he was acting in self-defence. If that argument fails, he contends the Crown is unable to prove that he had either of the two forms of intent necessary to prove the charge of murder.

[2] Whilst the jury was considering its verdict they provided the Registrar with several communications indicating that they were having difficulty reaching a unanimous decision on the issue of self-defence. In order to understand the issues that the communications raised, it is necessary to set out the questions posed in the question trail I provided to the jury during my summing up:

1.Has the Crown made you sure that [W] caused the death of Epapara Poutapu by stabbing him in the neck on 18 September 2023?

Accepted – go to Question 2.

2.What were the circumstances as [W] believed them to be at the time he caused the fatal stab wound to Mr Poutapu?

3.Has the Crown made you sure that [W] was not acting in self-defence at the time he caused the fatal stab wound to Mr Poutapu?

If Yes, go to Part B.

If No, go to Question 4.

4.Has the Crown made you sure that the force [W] used when he caused the fatal stab wound to Mr Poutapu was not reasonable having regard to the circumstances as he believed them to be at that time?

If Yes, go to Part B.

If No, find [W] not guilty of both murder and manslaughter.

[3] At 3.26 pm on 13 November 2024 the jury provided the Registrar with a communication containing the following advice.:

We do not have a unanimous decision to Q3 or Q4.

A number of jurors have answered No to both Q3 and Q4. The remainder have answered Yes to Q3.

Given there are a number of jurors answering No to both Q3 and Q4 does our collective verdict then become that of the “No” response in Q4.

[4] After discussing this with counsel, I provided the jury with brief directions as to how they should proceed. A short time later they indicated they wished to conclude deliberations for the day.

[5]…

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 W

Details

AGLC: R v W [2024] NZHC 3402
Case: [2024] NZHC 3402
Decision Date: 15 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v W involves a trial for the alleged murder of Epapara Poutapu. The defendant, W, claims that he acted in self-defence and that the Crown has failed to prove the requisite intent for murder. The jury communicated difficulties in reaching a unanimous decision on the issue of self-defence, prompting the court to provide supplementary directions to assist their deliberations.

The primary legal issues the court addressed were whether the jury needed to be unanimous on the questions concerning self-defence and whether the force used was reasonable. The court referenced established case law, including Tobin v R, Theobald v R, Simon v R, Pakai v R, Stepanicic v R, and Afamasaga v R, which suggest that while unanimity is required for the overall verdict, there is an argument that unanimity on the specific questions of self-defence and the reasonableness of force may not be necessary. The court, however, decided to provide additional guidance to ensure clarity.

The court found that, although there was no appellate authority directly supporting the proposition, the proposed directions were legally sound and necessary to avoid confusion. The court reasoned that the Crown could disprove self-defence by proving either that the defendant was not acting in self-defence or that the force used was not reasonable. This dual approach allows the jury to consider multiple pathways to a guilty verdict without requiring unanimity on each specific point. The court ultimately concluded that directing the jury in this manner would not cause any illogicality or prejudice to the defendant.

No final orders were made in this ruling, as the case is still ongoing, but the court's supplementary reasons aim to assist in future cases with similar issues.

Orders