Rabson v The Queen - [2013] NZCA 152

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA544/2012
[2013] NZCA 152

BETWEEN JOHN EDWARD RABSON
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 11 April 2013

Court: Stevens, Allan and Clifford JJ

Counsel: A J D Bamford for Appellant
K Raftery for Respondent

Judgment: 15 May 2013 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Allan J)

Introduction

Mr Rabson appeals against his conviction for the theft of a quantity of scrap metal. The charge was laid pursuant to ss 219(1)(a) and 223(c) of the Crimes Act 1961. He was tried together with two associates before Judge Zohrab and a jury in the Nelson District Court. The indictment alleged that the value of the goods stolen exceeded $500. The appeal against conviction is brought on the sole ground that the Crown failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the value of the goods concerned.[1]
[1]The Crown was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the value of the goods stolen exceeded $500: Crimes Act 1961, s 223(c); R v Koura [1996] 2 NZLR 9 (CA).
Mr Rabson was sentenced to 120 hours community work. There is no appeal against sentence.

Background

The Graham Downs Community is established on land near Motueka, owned by the Renaissance Community Trust. Members of the Community engage in co‑operative farming there. Over time the Community acquired or gathered together a quantity of farm equipment and machinery. Some of it was no longer in use, and was stored or placed at various points on the property, often under the shelter of trees.
Mr Rabson and his two co-accused were in the business of dealing in scrap metal. Their practice was to uplift unwanted scrap metal with an owner’s permission and take it away for resale on the basis that they would tidy up and even improve the owner’s property as they worked.
On 28 July 2010, Mr Rabson and Mr McFarland, a co-accused, collected specific items of scrap metal from the Community’s land and took them away in a truck. Members of the Community had authorised them to do so. It was accepted by the Crown that nothing unlawful occurred on that day. But on the following day, 29 July, Mr Rabson, Mr McFarland, and a third co-accused, Mr Kotua, returned to the Community’s land. This time they brought two trucks rather than one. The three men loaded a large quantity of scrap metal onto the trucks. However, later that day, some members of the Community (including trustees) told the accused that they were not entitled to take any further material away. By then the trucks were fully loaded. There was a verbal confrontation which culminated in the accused simply driving the two laden trucks off the Community’s property.
During the confrontation between the accused and Community members, Mr Rabson asserted that the Graham Downs Community was not owned by anybody in particular, that the property and everything on it belonged to all New Zealanders, and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rabson v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZCA 152
Decision Date: 15 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Rabson v The Queen, the appellant, John Edward Rabson, appealed against his conviction for the theft of scrap metal, arguing that the Crown failed to establish the value of the stolen goods beyond reasonable doubt. Rabson was tried with two co-accused, and they were found guilty by a jury in the Nelson District Court under sections 219(1)(a) and 223(c) of the Crimes Act 1961. The appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, which held that the Crown successfully proved the value of the stolen scrap metal exceeded $500.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Crown had established beyond reasonable doubt that the value of the stolen goods exceeded $500, as required by section 223(c) of the Crimes Act 1961. Rabson's counsel argued that the Crown had failed to prove the value of the stolen goods as the jury could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the value exceeded $500, given that a portion of the stolen goods was later sold for $635. The Court of Appeal considered the arguments and the evidence presented during the trial to determine if the Crown had met its burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal rejected Rabson's argument, holding that the jury had accepted the Crown's argument that consent to take any scrap metal off the Community land on 29 July had been revoked before the two laden trucks left the farm. The Court held that the revocation of consent applied to all the scrap metal taken by Rabson and his co-accused, regardless of the fact that the Community later sold some of the scrap metal to a third party. The Court found that the Crown had established the value of the stolen scrap metal exceeded $500, as evidenced by the receipt showing the sale for $635 of a portion of the stolen goods. Therefore, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and Rabson's conviction was upheld.

Orders