Roberts v The Queen - [2016] NZCA 578

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA255/2016
[2016] NZCA 578

BETWEEN	FRANK SAMUEL HUKATERE ROBERTS Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	19 October 2016
Court:	Cooper, Brewer and Peters JJ
Counsel:	P F Chambers for Appellant RMA McCoubrey and E E Meade for Respondent
Judgment:	5 December 2016 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Brewer J)

Introduction

Mr Frank Roberts was convicted by a jury in the District Court on 19 February 2016 on charges of injuring with intent to injure, intentional damage and doing a threatening act. He now appeals his convictions on the first and the last of those charges.
There are two grounds for the appeal. The first is that the trial Judge, Judge de Ridder, erred in a pre-trial ruling in which he declined to allow evidence of violent behaviour by the female victim to be called by the defence.[1]
[1]R v Roberts DC Kaikohe CRI-2014-029-480, 19 February 2016 (Ruling 3).
The second ground of appeal is that the guilty verdicts reached by the jury are so inconsistent with the evidence that no reasonable jury could have, or would have, found Mr Roberts guilty.

Background

Mr Roberts and the victim had been in a domestic relationship, but had been separated for about two years. The victim, shortly before the incident giving rise to the charges, told Mr Roberts that she was in a new relationship.
On 18 May 2014, Mr Roberts arrived, unexpectedly, at the victim’s home where she and her new partner, Mr Godfrey Hill, were. The Crown’s case was that upon the victim telling Mr Roberts to go outside, he punched her in the face and shoulder. The victim tried to push Mr Roberts out the door but, according to the evidence called by the Crown, he grabbed her by one arm and flung her out the door in what was described as a ragdoll motion. The victim fell on the ground outside the door, dislocating her shoulder.
A general fracas developed involving Mr Roberts, his two sisters (who had subsequently arrived), and Mr Hill. We do not need to describe it. It is enough to say that, eventually, the victim and her new partner were barricaded inside the house and Mr Roberts and his two sisters were outside the house.
Mr Roberts picked up a number of ceramic pot plants and threw them through windows of the house. He and one of his sisters inflicted significant damage on the victim’s vehicle. Eventually, through the intervention of another person, the incident came to an end.

The evidence ruled inadmissible

The victim, in a Family Court proceeding, had accepted that she had, some weeks before this incident, assaulted a niece who had been having an affair with Mr Roberts and who is now Mr Roberts’s partner. The victim had not seen the niece for some time but on going to the supermarket one day she saw her niece sitting 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 Roberts v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Roberts v The Queen [2016] NZCA 578
Case: [2016] NZCA 578
Decision Date: 5 December 2016 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Frank Roberts was convicted of injuring with intent to injure, intentional damage, and doing a threatening act. He appeals the convictions for injuring with intent to injure and doing a threatening act. The first ground of appeal is that the trial judge erred in a pre-trial ruling in which he declined to allow evidence of violent behaviour by the female victim to be called by the defence. The second ground of appeal is that the guilty verdicts reached by the jury are so inconsistent with the evidence that no reasonable jury could have, or would have, found Mr Roberts guilty.

The court found that the proposed evidence does not meet the definition of propensity evidence and is therefore inadmissible. The court found that the evidence was irrelevant because it did not tend to prove or disprove anything that is of consequence to the determination of the proceedings. The court found that the case required the jury to assess the credibility, reliability and accuracy of the witnesses. The court found that the discrepancies identified by Mr Chambers were not such that no reasonable jury could have been satisfied to the required standard that Mr Roberts was guilty on the relevant charges.

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders