Ratu v The Queen - [2013] NZHC 2083

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2013-470-000013 [2013] NZHC 2083

RAYMOND TE KURA RATU Appellant

v

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 5 August 2013

Counsel:

M P Nepia for Appellant
R W Jenson for Crown

Judgment:

15 August 2013

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 August 2013 at 4:00 p m
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

Counsel:
M P Nepia, Tauranga

RATU v R [2013] NZHC 2083 [15 AUGUST 2013]

Introduction

[1] Raymond Ratu was arrested in September 2012 on a matter unrelated to the present appeal. He was taken to the Tauranga police station and searched. When he took his belt off the police officer noticed that the buckle of the belt appeared to be a knuckleduster, which detached from the belt fairly easily.

[2] Mr Ratu said that he had bought the belt a couple of years ago, from a skate shop in Tauranga. He said he had no intention of using the buckle as a knuckleduster. It was strictly used as a belt buckle, for the purposes of holding his pants up.

[3] Mr Ratu was charged with possessing an offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.1 He was convicted by Judge P S Rollo in the District Court at Tauranga and sentenced to 130 hours’ community work. Mr Ratu now appeals that conviction, on the grounds that the Judge erred in fact and law. The key issues on appeal2 are:

(a) Is a knuckleduster an offensive weapon? (b) Is the article in this case a knuckleduster?
(c) If it is a knuckleduster, did Mr Ratu have a reasonable excuse for having it in his possession?

[4] I will consider each issue in turn.

Is a knuckleduster an offensive weapon?

[5] I will first consider, in the abstract, whether a knuckleduster is an offensive weapon.

1 An offence under s 202A(4)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961.
2 This is a “general appeal” by way of rehearing. Accordingly, the observations of the Supreme
Court in Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2008] 2 NZLR 141 at [4] and [5] apply.

What is a knuckleduster?

[6] The term “knuckleduster” is not statutorily defined in New Zealand. Judge Rollo helpfully set out in is judgment the Australian and United Kingdom statutory definitions of the term “knuckleduster,” which I summarise below.

[7] In the United Kingdom it is an offence to manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, expose or possess for the purpose of sale or hire, or lend or give to any other person, an offensive weapon.3 One such weapon is a knuckleduster, which is defined as being:4

...[A] band of metal or other hard material worn on one or more fingers, and designed to cause injury, and any weapon incorporating a knuckleduster.

[8] It is also an offence to be in possession of a knuckleduster in most Australian States. In the…

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 Ratu v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ratu v The Queen [2013] NZHC 2083
Case: [2013] NZHC 2083
Decision Date: 15 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Raymond Ratu appeals his conviction for possessing an offensive weapon in a public place. The issue at the heart of this appeal is whether the buckle on the appellant's belt was a knuckleduster and if so, whether he had a reasonable excuse for possessing it in public. The appeal was dismissed by Katz J. A knuckleduster is an offensive weapon per se. A knuckleduster is an article made or designed to be fitted over the knuckles of the hand of the user to protect the knuckles and to increase the effect of a punch or other blow. The knuckleduster in this case retained its character as an offensive weapon per se even though it was attached to and formed a functional part of a belt. The appellant did not have a reasonable excuse for being in possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. A reasonable person would not view the fact that an offensive weapon has been incorporated into an item of clothing as providing a reasonable excuse for carrying it. Only if the article was modified in such a way that it was no longer fit for purpose as an offensive weapon would a reasonable excuse potentially arise. Allowing knuckledusters to be lawfully used as belt buckles is contrary to the statutory purpose and could lead to a proliferation of prohibited offensive weapons being carried in public places.

Orders