Ras v Police - [2012] NZHC 1579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-443-13 [2012] NZHC 1579

HELOUISE RAS
Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 3 July 2012

Appearances: S T Hurley for the appellant
S A Law for the respondent

Judgment: 5 July 2012

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Ms Helouise Ras, was found guilty by Judge Roberts in the District Court at New Plymouth after a summary trial on charges on injuring with intent to injure and causing a motor vehicle to be driven in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, was or might have been dangerous to the public. Ms Ras was sentenced to 100 hours community work on the injuring charge and
40 hours community work (cumulative) and six months’ disqualification on the causing to be driven charge. Ms Ras now appeals against her convictions, but not
her sentences.

RAS v POLICE HC NWP CRI-2012-443-13 [5 July 2012]

Facts

[2] The charges Ms Ras faced arose out of an incident between her and her then partner, Mr Joshua Julian-Murray. Ms Ras and Mr Julian-Murray were arguing whilst Mr Julian-Murray was driving Ms Ras along Frankley Road towards and into the business district of New Plymouth. Ms Ras was said to have interfered with Mr Julian-Murray’s driving on Frankley Road, by pulling on the handbrake and swinging on the steering wheel causing the vehicle being driven to partially cross the centre lane into the path of oncoming traffic. That allegation gave rise to the charge Ms Ras faced of causing a vehicle to be driven in a dangerous manner. When the vehicle finally came to a stop in the New Plymouth business district, outside the Lone Star Restaurant, the allegation is that both Ms Ras and Mr Julian-Murray assaulted each other. Mr Julian-Murray pleaded guilty to a charge of male assaults female, and was eventually sentenced to 100 hours community work and the payment of $500 reparation to Ms Ras.

[3] The police appear to have laid the violence charges against Ms Ras and Mr Julian-Murray by reference to what they consider was the excess force used by them both during that incident. The prosecuting sergeant put it this way in opening the summary trial, referring to the incident in the vehicle after it had stopped outside
the Lone Star Restaurant:[1]
[1] Notes of evidence Q v Ras CRI-2011-043-003067, 16 March 2012 p 2 at 24-31.

... Now, physical acts occurred police allege by both parties and the acts that the defendant faces the charges for relate to her scratching and biting the complainant and squeezing his testicles. There was violence used by both parties police allege and the complainant has appeared in Court in relation to the excess force he used and has plead guilty and he will be discussing that during his giving of evidence. The incidents of violence that I have referred to are specific ones of what police allege was the excess force used by this defendant, Sir. ...

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 Ras v Police

Details

AGLC: Ras v Police [2012] NZHC 1579
Case: [2012] NZHC 1579
Decision Date: 5 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Helouise Ras appealed against her convictions for injuring with intent to injure and causing a motor vehicle to be driven in a manner which might have been dangerous to the public, but not her sentences. The charges stemmed from an altercation between Ras and her then partner, Joshua Julian-Murray, during which both parties were alleged to have used excessive force against each other. Ras denied interfering with the vehicle's operation while it was moving, but admitted to pulling on the handbrake just before it stopped. She also admitted to using violence against Julian-Murray but claimed it was in self-defence.

The primary legal issue was whether the District Court Judge had properly considered the defence of self-defence in relation to the charge of injuring with intent to injure. Ras argued that the Judge failed to follow the three-step approach outlined by the Court of Appeal, which requires the consideration of whether the accused used force for self-defence, the circumstances they believed themselves to be in, and whether the force used was reasonable. The Crown conceded that the three questions had not been explicitly asked but argued that the Judge had effectively considered them.

Clifford J found that the Judge had not properly addressed the self-defence issue by failing to explicitly ask the three questions set out by the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction for injuring with intent to injure was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the District Court for retrial. The Court also dismissed the appeal against the conviction for causing the vehicle to be driven in a dangerous manner, as the prosecution had not needed to prove the vehicle's registration number for that charge, and there was no basis to disturb the Judge's credibility findings.

Orders