R v Winders - [2016] NZHC 1147

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF ANY PART OF THIS JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE

RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2015-043-001723

[2016] NZHC 1147

THE QUEEN

v

QUINTON PAUL WINDERS

Hearing: 9 - 12 May 2016

Counsel:

A Gordon and C Macklin for the Crown

J Temm and K Patterson for the Defendant

Results:

20 May 2016

Reasons:

31 May 2016

REASONS JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

[Pre-trial applications about propensity evidence, eye-witness identification and admissibility of defendant's statement to Police]

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 May 2015 at 1:30 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

R v Winders [2016] NZHC 1147 [31 May 2016]

Table of Contents
Paragraph

Number

Introduction [1]

Summary of the evidence and the Crown’s assertions of the

essential facts
[7]

Brief summary of the Crown’s allegations [8]

Evidence relied upon to prove the identity of the offender [12]

Challenge to admissibility of alleged propensity evidence [13]

The Ford pig hunting incident in January 2009 [20]

The Gleeson possum shooting incident prior to April 2009 [25]

The first Kuriger incident (spotlighting) in April 2011 [29]

The second Kuriger incident (April 2012) [31]

The Jane/Law goat poaching incident in August/September 2012 [32]

Submissions on behalf of Mr Winders [37]

Discussion and conclusions [39]

Risk of prejudice [53]

Decision on propensity evidence [56]

Challenge to admissibility of evidence of visual identification of the defendant by Ms Corina Walker [58]

Challenge on grounds no formal identification procedure followed [61]

When was it feasible to follow the formal procedure? [64]

Has the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ms

Walker’s identification is reliable?
[73]

Discussion and conclusions [79]

Decision on visual identification evidence [92]

Challenge to admissibility of the video recording and transcript of a Police interview of the defendant on 4 April 2013 [93]

The Crown’s case for admissibility [96]

Discussion – no proper grounds for arrest for reckless driving [99]

Table of Contents
Paragraph

Number

Detention for ulterior purpose unlawful even if arrest justifiable [110]

Alternative claim of unlawfulness – failure to inform of right to legal advice [112]

Unfair questioning [122]

No causal link between the unlawful detention and the evidence obtained in the interview [125]

Balancing test under s 30(2) Evidence Act [131]

Decision on admissibility of evidence obtained in Police interview [137]

Non-publication order [138]

Introduction

[1] Quinton Paul Winders is charged that on 19 March 2013, at Atiamuri, he murdered George Taiaroa.

[2] Following notification that challenges would be made by the defendant to certain evidence which the Crown proposes to lead at trial, the Crown Solicitor made three applications under s 101 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 for orders ruling that the challenged evidence is admissible.

[3]The evidence falls into three categories:

(a)evidence of alleged prior conduct by the defendant which the Crown argues…

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 Winders

Details

AGLC: R v Winders [2016] NZHC 1147
Case: [2016] NZHC 1147
Decision Date: 31 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Winders involved pre-trial applications concerning the admissibility of certain evidence in a murder trial. Quinton Paul Winders was charged with the murder of George Taiaroa, which allegedly occurred on 19 March 2013. The Crown sought to admit three categories of evidence: propensity evidence, visual identification evidence, and a Police interview of Winders. The judge, Toogood J, ruled on the admissibility of these categories of evidence.

The first category was propensity evidence, which the Crown sought to use to demonstrate Winders's tendency to overreact with firearms. The judge ruled that evidence of four incidents, including the Ford pig hunting incident, the Gleeson possum shooting incident, and two Kuriger incidents, was admissible as propensity evidence. However, the Jane/Law goat poaching incident was ruled inadmissible.

The second category was visual identification evidence from Corina Walker, who identified Winders as the driver of a vehicle speeding away from the murder scene. Despite the Crown not following a formal identification procedure, the judge found that Walker's identification was reliable and admissible.

The third category was the video recording and transcript of a Police interview of Winders on 4 April 2013. The judge ruled that the evidence was admissible despite the unlawfulness of Winders's arrest and detention, as there was no causal link between the unlawful detention and the evidence obtained in the interview.

The judge also issued a non-publication order to protect Winders's right to a fair trial, prohibiting the publication of any part of the judgment until the completion of the trial.

Orders