Rowlands v Police - [2019] NZHC 437

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2018-441-000025

[2019] NZHC 437

BETWEEN
TALLY RAYMOND ROWLANDS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 13 March 2019 (via AVL at Wellington)

Counsel:

W R Hawkins for Appellant C R Stuart for Respondent

Judgment:

13 March 2019

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Rowlands was convicted of two charges of male assaults female1 after a Judge-alone trial before Judge Adeane in the District Court at Hastings on 10 July 2018.2 In relation to the main assault charge, Mr Rowlands was sentenced to nine months’ supervision and directed to undertake counselling and education programmes. He was ordered to come up for sentence if called upon in relation to the other assault charge. A protection order was imposed by consent.3 Mr Rowlands appeals against his convictions on the basis that the Judge erred by failing to place any weight on the oral evidence of the complainant, who, when giving evidence, resiled from the signed statement she provided the police.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 194; maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
2      New Zealand Police v Rowlands [2018] NZDC 17025.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 123B.

ROWLANDS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 437 [13 March 2019]

Background

[2] On 21 February 2018, police were called to “an assault incident” at a residential address in Hastings where the complainant’s cousin resides. Mr Rowlands was at that address with his partner, the complainant. Mr Rowlands was arrested, and the complainant made a statement to police.

[3] In her statement to Constable Codyre, one of the officers at the scene, the complainant said that when she arrived home Mr Rowlands was “really angry” that she had left their infant son with him for a couple of hours. She said that he “got up from where he was sitting and was abusing” her. She said he then “shoved [her] with one hand”, that it was “pretty hard” and that she “got knocked to the ground”. She said that Mr Rowlands then went outside, so she “ran to the neighbours”.

[4] The complainant also explained in her statement to police that she had a black eye, which she said “happened one afternoon last week” when Mr Rowlands was “laying into” her and “back handed” her. She said that she did not get knocked to the ground on that occasion but that it hurt. The complainant said that Mr Rowlands was “always angry with” her and that she is “intimidated by him”. She said that she “was so scared [that day] that [she] locked [herself] in the bathroom at the neighbour’s house.” She said she wanted a protection order to keep her and her son safe.

[5] The next day, the complainant spoke to Constable Codyre and expressed a desire to withdraw the charges because family members were “turning against her”.

[6] At trial, the complainant was called as a witness for the prosecution. However, when she was examined about…

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 Rowlands v Police

Details

AGLC: Rowlands v Police [2019] NZHC 437
Case: [2019] NZHC 437
Decision Date: 13 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Tally Raymond Rowlands appealed his conviction and sentence for two charges of assault against a female. Rowlands was convicted by a Judge-alone in the Hastings District Court and sentenced to nine months' supervision and ordered to undertake counselling and education programmes. Rowlands' appeal was based on the argument that the Judge erred by not considering the oral evidence of the complainant who, when giving evidence, contradicted her signed statement to the police. The appeal court was tasked with determining whether the Judge's assessment of the evidence was erroneous, which would constitute a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined the circumstances in which the complainant's statement to the police was made and compared it to her oral evidence given at trial. It found that the statement was made immediately after the events, the complainant had the opportunity to read and sign it, and it was more consistent with the police officers' evidence. The court also noted that the complainant's credibility was questionable as her oral evidence was inconsistent, and she seemed unsure of the details of her new account. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Judge was entitled to reject the complainant's oral evidence in favour of her statement to the police, and the evidence from the photograph supported the complainant's statement about the source of her black eye.

In conclusion, the appeal court found that the Judge did not err in preferring the complainant's statement to police over her oral evidence. Therefore, the appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court emphasised that the fact-finder's role is to weigh the evidence and decide its credibility, and it is not the role of the appellate court to substitute its view of the evidence for that of the trial judge. The appeal was dismissed, and Rowlands' convictions and sentence were upheld.

Orders