Legal Research
Cases
Robson v Police

Robson v Police

Case [2025] NZHC 924 15 April 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2025-443-11

[2025] NZHC 924

BETWEEN
LUKE CHARLES ROBSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 8 April 2025

Appearances:

D A Sutton for Appellant H Bullock for Respondent

Judgment:

15 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF McHERRON J

(Appeal against Conviction)

Introduction

[1] After a Judge alone trial on 29 November 2024, the appellant, Luke Robson, was convicted of two charges of male assaults female.1 These charges arose from an incident outside the appellant’s house. The complainant was running past the appellant’s property. His dog bared its teeth at her after she crouched to talk to it. The appellant told the complainant to leave and then chased and assaulted her.

[2] When police visited the appellant on 5 October 2023, to make inquiries about the alleged offending, he assaulted one of the constables. He was charged with a single charge of aggravated assault,2 to which he pleaded guilty mid-trial. At the end of the Crown case, the Judge issued a ruling on the charges, that one of the constables had good cause to suspect and that it followed there was a case to answer in respect of the

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 194(b). Maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act, s 192(2). Maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.

ROBSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 924 [15 April 2025]

male assaults female charges (the Ruling).3 At the end of the trial the Judge issued a judgment containing his verdicts and reasons (the Judgment).4 These are the decisions under appeal.

[3] For this offending, the appellant was sentenced to 12 months’ supervision on 21 February 2025, and required to pay $500 in reparation.5

[4]The appellant now appeals his convictions. He contends:

(a)the District Court erred in finding his arrest was lawful (and therefore subsequent comments made to police as he was being driven to the police station were inadmissible);

(b)the prosecution did not meet their evidential burden; and

(c)the evidence was insufficient to sustain the charges of male assaults female.

Background

The offending

[5] On 3 September 2023, the complainant and the appellant interacted outside his property, after she stopped to talk to his black German Shepherd while jogging. The appellant confronted the complainant about her interaction with the dog. She moved away down the road, but the appellant left his property and followed the complainant onto the road, “taunting her”.6 He poked her on her shoulder and arm a number of times, slapped her cheek and barged her (connecting shoulder to shoulder and throwing her off balance) into a dip on the rural road.7 The complainant had her hands in front of her face and the appellant was attempting to video or photograph her. The complainant subsequently complained to the police, providing a visual description of

3      Police v Robson [2024] NZDC 32295 [Ruling].
4      Police v Robson [2024] NZDC 32249 [Judgment].
5      Police v Robson [2025] NZDC 4222 [Sentencing decision].

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 Robson v Police

Details

AGLC: Robson v Police [2025] NZHC 924
Case: [2025] NZHC 924
Decision Date: 15 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Luke Robson, contested his convictions for male assaults female and aggravated assault. The convictions stemmed from an incident in which the appellant allegedly assaulted a woman who was running past his property. The woman had stopped to speak to his dog, which bared its teeth at her. The appellant confronted the woman, and subsequently chased and assaulted her. Following the incident, the police visited the appellant's residence to make inquiries about the alleged assault. During the police visit, the appellant assaulted one of the constables, leading to a charge of aggravated assault. The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing that the District Court erred in finding his arrest was lawful and that the prosecution did not meet their evidential burden. The court found that the arresting constable had good cause to suspect the appellant had committed the assault against the complainant. The court also found that the Judge did not err in determining there was a case to answer and that the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the contact or infliction of force to the complainant was intentional. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's convictions.

Orders