Rongo v The King - [2023] NZCA 626

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA199/2023
[2023] NZCA 626

BETWEEN	JOSHUA TE MANA O TE RANGI DANIEL RONGO Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	28 September 2023
Court:	Gilbert, Peters and Hinton JJ
Counsel:	M A Dempster for Appellant K R Guthrie for Respondent
Judgment:	7 December 2023 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Hinton J)

Introduction

On 7 December 2022 Mr Joshua Rongo was convicted by a jury of one charge each of possession of an offensive weapon, obtaining by deception and receiving.[1] He was found not guilty of three other charges and six charges were dismissed.[2] Mr Rongo was sentenced on 30 March 2023 by Judge RLB Spear at the Hamilton District Court to four months community detention and ordered to pay $2,500 in reparation.[3]
[1]Charges three, four and seven respectively.
[2]Mr Rongo was found not guilty of charges one (obtaining by deception), five (unlawful possession of firearm) and six (unlawful possession of ammunition). Charges two (obtaining by deception) and eight, nine, ten, eleven and twelve (receiving x 5) were discharged by Judge Spear under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 for lack of evidence.
[3]R v Rongo [2023] NZDC 15764.
Mr Rongo appeals his conviction on the basis that the Judge erred by admitting a hearsay statement from the complainant on the receiving charge and by misdirecting the jury in summing up on all three charges. The notice of appeal also refers to an alleged error of the Judge in declining to provide a transcript of the summing up. This was not pursued, and we do not address it.
The Crown opposes the appeal.

Alleged offending

Possession of an offensive weapon

The complainant, Mr Gildenhuys, is a mechanic who Mr Rongo had engaged for some work on a vehicle. There was a dispute about non-payment for that work.
On 22 September 2019, Mr Gildenhuys drove to Mr Rongo’s address to collect the monies owed. On arrival he was confronted with Mr Rongo holding a rifle pointed in his general direction and telling him to “fuck off”. Mr Gildenhuys explained he was there to collect payment and following a discussion between the men Mr Rongo lowered the firearm.
At trial, Mr Rongo denied that he presented a firearm at Mr Gildenhuys.

Obtaining by deception

On 16 November 2019, Mr Rongo made arrangements via Facebook to hire a commercial water blasting unit. Mr Rongo provided a false name, address, and phone number. He purported to hire the unit for one day but then asked to extend the hireage for a further day. Later, he informed the owner of the unit that it had been stolen and that he had reported this to police. On 24 April 2020, during a police search of Mr Rongo’s property, the dismantled water blaster unit was located. No report to police had been made.
Mr Rongo’s evidence at trial was…

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 Rongo v The King

Details

AGLC: Rongo v The King [2023] NZCA 626
Case: [2023] NZCA 626
Decision Date: 7 December 2023 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joshua Te Mana o Te Rangi Daniel Rongo appeals his conviction for possession of an offensive weapon, obtaining by deception, and receiving. The appeal is dismissed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, affirming the trial court's decisions. The appellant's primary contention was that the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay evidence from the complainant on the receiving charge and misdirecting the jury in summing up on all three charges. The Crown opposed the appeal, arguing that the trial was fair and the judge's actions did not prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial.

Regarding the admission of hearsay evidence, the court found that the hearsay statement met the threshold reliability criteria under the Evidence Act. Furthermore, the court concluded that the inability to cross-examine the complainant did not result in unfair prejudice and did not affect the outcome of the trial. The court also determined that the judge did not err in the summing up of evidence on all three charges, finding that the summing up was balanced, appropriate, and did not lead the jury.

Overall, the Court of Appeal found no miscarriage of justice in the trial, and the appeal is dismissed. The convictions of Joshua Rongo for possession of an offensive weapon, obtaining by deception, and receiving are upheld.

Orders