Reid v Police - [2020] NZHC 1917

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2020-485-40

[2020] NZHC 1917

BETWEEN
SWAN DONOVAN REID

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 28 July 2020

Counsel:

L A Caris for appellant

K L Kensington for respondent

Judgment:

31 July 2020

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

[1] On 5 June 2020, following a judge-alone trial in the District Court at Porirua, the appellant (Mr Reid) was convicted of assault against his former partner (the complainant).1 Judge Harrop also found that the circumstances of the assault constituted a breach of a protection order that was in force to protect the complainant, so a second charge to that effect was also made out.

[2]Mr Reid has now appealed those convictions on three grounds:

(a)first, that the trial Judge erred in failing adequately to consider and provide reasons for accepting the evidence from the complainant;

(b)secondly, that the Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence upon which he determined the issue of self-defence; and

1 Police v Reid [2020] NZDC 12534.

REID v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 1917 [31 July 2020]

(c)thirdly, that the Judge erred in his assessment of the legal test for self- defence.

The factual circumstances

[3] The Judge described Mr Reid and the complainant as having been in an “on again, off again” relationship for some five years. Over that period, there have been a large number of family harm incidents reported between them and a protection order in favour of the complainant against Mr Reid has been in place since January 2015.

[4] The interactions between them on the day in question remain somewhat unclear. The only direct evidence of what had occurred was provided by the complainant and the Judge was confronted with the familiar situation of a complainant of domestic violence substantially recanting on an initial and relatively detailed statement given to the Police at the time. The differences between the complainant’s original statement and the evidence she was giving viva voce in court led to an application by the prosecution for her to be declared hostile, which was granted by Judge Harrop for the limited purposes of inviting her to explain the reasons for the differences between the two versions.

[5] In the statement given to the Police on the date of the altercation, the complainant described Mr Reid arriving at her home, entering the house covertly using a key she was not aware he had, and waking the complainant who was asleep in the lounge. She described him as being angry, and he demanded to know whether she had called the Police about his conduct the previous evening. The complainant acknowledged that she had called the Police because Mr Reid had taken her cell phone and had not returned it as she wanted him to. She described Mr Reid as then yelling at her and pushing her with a hand to her chest, and she pushed him back. In response to that,…

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 Reid v Police

Details

AGLC: Reid v Police [2020] NZHC 1917
Case: [2020] NZHC 1917
Decision Date: 31 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Swan Donovan Reid appealed his conviction for assault against his former partner, arguing that the trial Judge erred in failing adequately to consider and provide reasons for accepting the evidence from the complainant, in his assessment of the evidence upon which he determined the issue of self-defence, and in his assessment of the legal test for self-defence. The factual circumstances were that the Judge described Mr Reid and the complainant as having been in an “on again, off again” relationship for some five years with numerous family harm incidents reported between them and a protection order in favour of the complainant against Mr Reid in place since January 2015. The only direct evidence of what had occurred was provided by the complainant and the Judge was confronted with the familiar situation of a complainant of domestic violence substantially recanting on an initial and relatively detailed statement given to the Police at the time. The Judge considered it “fairly likely” that events had occurred consistently with the complainant’s original statement to the Police, but after considering her evidence held that was not something he could be sure of. Accordingly, not being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that events occurred in the way she had told the Police, the Judge analysed the adequacy of the evidence on the basis of the version of events given by the complainant in her evidence in court. The Judge was satisfied that Mr Reid had, during the altercation, pushed the complainant in the chest and he focused on that as the form of alleged assault that the prosecution would be required to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

The court held that there was no error in the Judge’s consideration of the complainant’s evidence. The court also held that there was no error in the Judge’s assessment of the evidence going to self-defence. The court rejected the third ground of appeal for the reasons discussed above. The court held that none of the grounds of appeal challenging the conviction were made out and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders