Reeve v Police - [2021] NZHC 1775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2021-454-000019

[2021] NZHC 1775

JOHN ALBIN REEVE

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 14 July 2021

Appearances:

P V Paino for the Appellant

A M Barham for the Respondent

Judgment:

14 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1] The appellant appeals against his conviction on one charge of presenting a firearm in contravention of s 52(1) of the Arms Act 1983.1 He was fined $750, ordered to pay Court costs and his firearms license was revoked.

General background

[2] The appellant, Mr John Reeve, and Mr Adrian McIntyre, the complainant, have been neighbours for around 20 years. Mr Reeve owns a farm block adjacent to Waihi Falls Road and Waione-Horoeka Road, while Mr McIntyre lives on Towai Road and also leases a farm block called Lindon block, which is adjacent to Waihi Falls Road, and neighbours Mr Reeves’ property. They have had a history of disagreements.

1 New Zealand Police v Reeve [2021] NZDC 2979.

REEVE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 1775 [14 July 2021]

[3] On Saturday 9 May 2020 Mr McIntyre’s two sons went to his leased block to hunt. Soon after, Mr McIntyre also arrived at his block to check on his sons. Meanwhile Mr Reeve was on his own property, around 150 meters away from Mr McIntyre’s sons who were shooting. Mr McIntyre engaged in a verbal argument with the appellant. During the argument Mr Reeve was alleged to have picked up his rifle from his vehicle. He is then alleged to have pointed it at Mr McIntyre, who began to record him with his cell phone. Mr Reeve put the rifle back in his vehicle and left.

[4] In explanation, Mr Reeve said Mr McIntyre had started the argument and he had only shown him the rifle to explain he was entitled to shoot deer on his own property, and that he did not point it at Mr McIntyre.

Approach to appeal

[5] This appeal is governed under s 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 as a first appeal. The Court must allow the appeal where it is satisfied that, in this case, the Judge erred in her assessment of the evidence to such an extent that a miscarriage of justice has occurred,2 or if a miscarriage of justice has occurred for any reason.3 A miscarriage of justice means any error, irregularity, or occurrence in relation to or affecting the trial that created a real risk of affecting the outcome of trial, or resulted in an unfair trial or a trial that was a nullity.4

[6] Appeals occur by way of rehearing without the limits arising from an appeal from the exercise of a discretion.5 However, as the Supreme Court held in Sena v R,6 the language of s 232(2)(b) requires there be a “focus on the judge’s assessment of evidence, a focus which presupposes the existence of reasons from which the substance…

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 Reeve v Police

Details

AGLC: Reeve v Police [2021] NZHC 1775
Case: [2021] NZHC 1775
Decision Date: 14 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr John Reeve, appeals his conviction for presenting a firearm in contravention of s 52(1) of the Arms Act 1983. The conviction was upheld by the District Court, and Mr Reeve was fined $750, ordered to pay court costs, and his firearms license was revoked. Mr Reeve contends that the prosecution did not prove the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.

The key issue for the court to decide was whether the prosecution proved that Mr Reeve presented a firearm at Mr McIntyre. Mr Reeve was alleged to have pointed his rifle at Mr McIntyre during a heated argument, which Mr McIntyre recorded on his cellphone. Mr Reeve claimed that he only showed the rifle to Mr McIntyre to assert that he was entitled to shoot deer on his own property and did not point it at him. The District Court Judge held that the brandishing of the rifle in that context amounted to presenting it, and all elements of the offence were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court considered the evidence, including Mr McIntyre's testimony, Mr Reeve's formal police interview, and two cellphone recordings. The Court concluded that the District Court Judge's finding that Mr Reeve did not point the firearm at Mr McIntyre was understandable given the circumstances. However, the Court disagreed with the finding that the brandishing of the firearm amounted to presenting it. The Court held that the firearm must be presented at a person, and the actions in this case were ambiguous and did not amount to the equivalent of pointing the firearm at Mr McIntyre.

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed. The Court found that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Reeve presented the firearm at Mr McIntyre in a way equivalent to pointing it at him. The Court did not consider a retrial appropriate, given the circumstances of the case.

Orders