Legal Research
Cases
Ralyntyne v The Queen

Ralyntyne v The Queen

Case [2019] NZHC 2665 18 October 2019

Criminal Liability

Miscarriage of Justice

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI 2019-419-0048

[2019] NZHC 2665

BETWEEN SHAYNE SCOYT WINFIELD RALYNTYNE
Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Date of hearing: 17 October 2019

Appearances:

Mr Ralyntyne in person ASC Alcock for the Crown

Date of judgment:

18 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

The judgment was delivered by me on 18 October 2019 at 3.30pm.

……………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Almao Douch, Hamilton

RALYNTYNE v R [2019] NZHC 2665 [18 October 2019]

[1] Shayne Ralyntyne appeals against the decisions of Judge KBF Saunders in the District Court at Hamilton, finding Mr Ralyntyne guilty on two charges of indecent assault,1 and sentencing him to 17 months’ imprisonment, with standard and special release conditions applying for six months after expiry of the sentence.2

[2] Mr Ralyntyne was released from prison on 27 November 2018 on time served. He then was admitted to the Henry Rongomau Bennett Centre (HRBC), a mental health facility operated by the Waikato DHB. He since has had three further admissions to HRBC.

Background

[3] Mr Ralyntyne faced two charges of indecent assault.3 He was alleged serially to have indecently assaulted two 17-year-old girls, M and N, attending a youth camp at the Baptist Church on Ulster Street in Hamilton in 2016. He was not known to either of them (or them to each other). He withdrew his election of trial by jury. After being found fit to plead, he pleaded not guilty for a Judge-alone trial heard 24–26 September 2018.

District Court decision(s)

[4] Evidence was given by A, accompanying M at the time of the alleged offending, M, N, the arresting officers, and Mr Ralyntyne. The Crown alleged Mr Ralyntyne had indecently assaulted M by running his fingers through her hair and by cupping her breast, and he had indecently assaulted N by squeezing her leg from the ankle to her underwear line, and by kissing her cheeks.

[5] Mr Ralyntyne denied touching M at all. He accepted having laid his jacket down for her to walk on but said, after her dismissive response, he did not further interact with her.4 Mr Ralyntyne admitted stroking N’s hair, putting his arm around her and kissing her on both cheeks. But he said he put his arm around her to protect

1      R v Ralyntyne [2018] NZDC 20302.
2      R v Robinson (sic) [2018] NZDC 24793. The case name plainly is an error, the Judge expressly referring to Mr Ralyntyne at [2], and the sentencing clearly referable to the Judge’s earlier verdicts against him.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 135. Maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.
4      R v Ralyntyne, above n 1, at [28].

her, he moved her hair out of her face to make sure she was okay, and he kissed her once on each cheek to say goodbye. He…

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 Ralyntyne v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ralyntyne v The Queen [2019] NZHC 2665
Case: [2019] NZHC 2665
Decision Date: 18 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shayne Ralyntyne appeals against his convictions and sentences for two charges of indecent assault imposed by Judge Saunders in the District Court at Hamilton. Ralyntyne was found guilty of indecently assaulting two 17-year-old girls attending a youth camp at a Baptist Church in Hamilton in 2016. The District Court Judge found Ralyntyne’s conduct to be indecent and that he intended to be indecent. She rejected his claims of innocence, finding his evidence unconvincing and preferring the evidence of the two complainants, corroborated in part by another witness. The starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment was uplifted by eight months to reflect the two separate offences, and the overall sentence was reduced to 17 months’ imprisonment to adjust for totality.

Ralyntyne contends the Judge erred in her credibility findings to such a degree a miscarriage of justice has occurred. He also claims the sentence was manifestly excessive. Judge Jagose dismissed the appeal. On reviewing the evidence, Judge Jagose found the complainants to be reliable and credible witnesses and rejected Ralyntyne’s alternative account. Judge Jagose was satisfied there was no miscarriage of justice. The sentencing approach adopted by Judge Saunders was sound. The sentence was well within the range open to the Judge and was not manifestly excessive.

Ralyntyne’s appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.

Orders