Rimene v The the King - [2022] NZHC 3377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND MASTERTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKAORIORI ROHE

CRI 2022-435-2

CRI 2022-435-3

[2022] NZHC 3377

BETWEEN
KODY MICHAEL THOMAS RIMENE

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 22 November 2022

Counsel:

K F Preston and I M I Aitchison for Appellant L R van der Lem for Respondent

Judgment:

13 December 2022

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] Mr Rimene was convicted of burglary1 in a judge-alone trial in the Masterton District Court.2 He was sentenced to two years and eight months’ imprisonment. He appeals against his conviction. An appeal against his sentence has been abandoned.

[2] Mr Rimene contends that the District Court Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence to such an extent that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. He says that the Judge placed:

(a)undue weight on the fact that he was seen on a security camera outside the burgled property around the time of the offending;

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a) (maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment; offence category 3).
2 New Zealand Police v Rimene [2021] NZDC 25060 (per Judge Harrop).

RIMENE v R [2022] NZHC 3377 [13 December 2022]

(b)undue weight on the fact his palm print that was located at the burglar’s point of entry (the kitchen window); and

(c)little or no weight on the Facebook Messenger messages purporting to show a conversation the complainant had with a third party where she admitted to falsely accusing the appellant as the offender.

The evidence

[3] Most of the evidence at the District Court defended hearing was adduced by agreement.3 The only evidence given viva voce and subject to cross examination was that of the complainant.

Complainant’s evidence

[4] In December 2020, the complainant was living at an address in Masterton with her daughter and a male friend, Makere. Chaynne Courtney, a friend, was also staying for a few days. On the evening of 14 December 2020, Mr Rimene was visiting. The complainant had known Mr Rimene all her life. He was a friend and her children’s uncle. He arrived at about 11 pm. They went into her daughter’s bedroom to show him a scooter. They also went into the kitchen. He left some time between 2 and 3 am.

[5] At around 4 to 5 am, the complainant, Makere and Ms Courtney went for a drive to Greytown. The complainant was the driver and took her vehicle. She said they went on the drive because Ms Courtney wanted to be dropped off in Greytown but when they got there she changed their mind. The three of them then went to the complainant’s sister’s place in Carterton. They returned at about 7.30 am to 8 am and no later than 9 am. It was daylight.

[6] The first thing the complainant noticed was that Ms Courtney’s truck was gone from the front lawn. She also saw that the kitchen window, on the back left corner of the house, was wide open and the ladder…

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 Rimene v The the King

Details

AGLC: Rimene v The the King [2022] NZHC 3377
Case: [2022] NZHC 3377
Decision Date: 13 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kody Michael Thomas Rimene appeals against his conviction for burglary by the Masterton District Court. The appeal hinges on the argument that the District Court Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Rimene contends that the Judge placed undue weight on specific evidence, including his presence on a security camera outside the burgled property, his palm print found at the point of entry, and insufficient weight on Facebook Messenger messages that allegedly showed the complainant had falsely accused him. The High Court considered whether the circumstantial evidence collectively proved Rimene’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court found that Rimene’s presence at the scene and his palm print provided strong evidence of his involvement. The Court acknowledged an innocent explanation for the palm print was possible but noted the absence of direct evidence supporting this theory. Additionally, Rimene’s reaction to his arrest and his awareness of the motive provided further circumstantial evidence. The Court concluded that these strands of evidence, when considered together, proved Rimene’s involvement in the burglary beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Orders