Reddy v R - [2011] NZCA 184

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA75/2011
[2011] NZCA 184

BETWEEN KUNAL NAND REDDY
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

CA114/2011

AND BETWEEN AUGUSTUS AH-CHONG
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 28 March 2011

Court: Glazebrook, Simon France and Lang JJ

Counsel: A Shaw and F Geiringer for Appellant Reddy
H D M Lawry for Appellant Ah-Chong
N P Chisnall and M H Cooke for Respondent

Judgment: 13 May 2011 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AMr Ah-Chong’s appeal against conviction for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm is dismissed. His appeal against conviction for aggravated robbery is allowed, and the conviction is quashed. No retrial is ordered.
B Mr Ah-Chong’s appeal against sentence is dismissed.
CMr Reddy’s appeal against conviction is dismissed. His appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of eight months’ imprisonment is quashed. In its place there will be a sentence of two months’ imprisonment.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Simon France J)

Table of Contents

Para No
Introduction  [1]
Facts  [6]
Mr Ah-Chong’s appeal  [15]
      Further facts  [15]

First appeal ground – a second aggravated robbery charge should
not have been added [19]
Second appeal ground – the verdicts on count two and count three
are inconsistent [31]

Third appeal ground – directions on party liability for count one          [43]
Fourth appeal ground – the taking of the verdicts[51]
Mr Reddy’s appeal[72]
Sentence appeals[101]
      Mr Ah-Chong  [101]
      Mr Reddy  [108]

Introduction

In August 2008, a shopkeeper was savagely beaten as he went to close his premises for the night. The attack was organised by a disgruntled employee, Ms Tanya Aziz. Ms Aziz had paid an associate, Mr Vaiula Luatua, to carry out the assault. He in turn co‑opted two others to help. They were the appellant, Mr Augustus Ah-Chong and a prosecution witness, Mr Vincent Suifua.
The Crown case was that Mr Ah-Chong and Mr Suifua were responsible for the initial attack. The idea was to render the victim unconscious so that Mr Luatua could then participate without being recognised by the victim who knew him. Ms Aziz’s instructions to Mr Luatua were to beat the victim so as to hospitalise him, and he successfully did this, using an iron bar he took with him.
Mr Aziz, Mr Luatua and Mr Suifua all pleaded guilty to their involvement. Mr Ah‑Chong went to trial where he faced charges of causing grievous bodily harm, and aggravated robbery of some items taken after the attack. The stolen items were money taken from the till and from the victim’s back pocket, and a satchel belonging to the victim. The idea behind the thefts was that they would make it look like a robbery and thereby hide the real purpose of the beating.
Mr Ah-Chong was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm. He was acquitted of the aggravated robbery. However, during the trial the Crown had added a second aggravated robbery charge in…

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 Reddy v R

Details

AGLC: Reddy v R [2011] NZCA 184
Case: [2011] NZCA 184
Decision Date: 13 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Reddy v R, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard appeals against conviction and sentence by Augustus Ah-Chong and Kunal Nand Reddy. Augustus Ah-Chong was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm and aggravated robbery in relation to a vicious assault on a shop owner. Kunal Nand Reddy was convicted of being an accessory after the fact by destroying CCTV footage. The Court dismissed Ah-Chong's appeal against conviction for grievous bodily harm, but allowed his appeal against conviction for aggravated robbery and quashed the conviction. The Court allowed Reddy's appeal against sentence, substituting a two-month imprisonment term for the original eight-month term.

The legal issues the Court had to decide included the propriety of amending the indictment during the trial to include an additional aggravated robbery count, the consistency of the jury's verdicts, the adequacy of the trial judge's summing up, and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed. The Court found that there was no power to amend the indictment to include the additional count, and that the jury's verdicts on the aggravated robbery counts were inconsistent. The Court considered the trial judge's summing up adequate, and substituted a shorter jail term for Reddy's original sentence.

Orders