Rowntree v The King

Case [2025] NZHC 1600


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA MĀWHERA ROHE

CRI-2025-418-3 [2025] NZHC 1600
BETWEEN

LESTER MICHAEL ROWNTREE

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 12 June 2025

Appearances:

Appellant in person

A M Harvey for Respondent

Judgment:

17 June 2025


JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J


This judgment was delivered by me on 17 June 2025 at 9.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

ROWNTREE v R [2025] NZHC 1600 [17 June 2025]

Introduction

[1]                   Mr Lester Rowntree was found guilty at a Judge-alone trial of common assault, and subsequently discharged without conviction.1 He now seeks leave to appeal that finding of guilt as well as the “emotional harm payment order [pursuant] to an unsought discharge without conviction entered by trial judge at his own discretion”.

[2]Mr Rowntree’s primary complaints are that:

(a)he was not competent to conduct his own defence;

(b)the police investigation was flawed; and

(c)evidence was misinterpreted by the Judge.

[3]                   There is a jurisdictional hurdle to Mr Rowntree’s appeal, and he also brings his appeal significantly out of time. Mr Rowntree was found guilty of the charge in a decision dated 1 June 2022 and was discharged without conviction on 1 July 2022. For these reasons, Eaton J directed that the application for leave to appeal be heard separately from any substantive appeal. He also invited Mr Rowntree to file submissions on the jurisdictional issue. That has not been done.

[4]                   As Mr Rowntree frankly acknowledged at the hearing, he was not equipped to respond to technical arguments about jurisdiction. He simply submitted it was in “the interests of justice” and was a “human rights issue” that he be allowed a further chance to prove his innocence, particularly as it seems the victim relied on the District Court’s finding when bringing a claim against Mr Rowntree, as his employer in the Employment Relations Authority.


1      Crimes Act 1961, s 196 — maximum penalty one year imprisonment.

Background

The assault

[5]                   The victim was an employee of Mr Rowntree at the Stage Coach Otira Hotel. At about 9:30pm on 14 November 2018, the victim was working in the kitchen area of the hotel. Mr Rowntree confronted him about some ducklings the victim was supposed to be looking after while he was away, but which had either died or were in poor condition on Mr Rowntree’s return.

[6]                   Mr Rowntree yelled at the victim, then pushed him. He grabbed the victim by the back of his head and hit his head into a freezer, causing him to bleed. The victim fell to the ground. Mr Rowntree continued yelling at the victim and the victim eventually pulled himself up a set of stairs and locked himself in a room to call police.

[7]                   The victim had swelling and busing over his right eyelid, three lacerations to his forehead, and a fractured hip. He was hospitalised for five days.

[8]                   Mr Rowntree’s version of events at both trials…

Continue reading Rowntree v The King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rowntree v The King [2025] NZHC 1600
Case
[2025] NZHC 1600
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Rowntree v The King involved Lester Michael Rowntree, who sought leave to appeal his conviction for common assault. Rowntree was found guilty at a Judge-alone trial and discharged without conviction, but he argued that he was not competent to conduct his own defence, the police investigation was flawed, and evidence was misinterpreted by the Judge. The primary legal issues were whether there was jurisdiction for Mr Rowntree to appeal and whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted.

The court found that there was no jurisdiction for Mr Rowntree to bring his appeal as he was not convicted, and therefore, no right of appeal was available under the Criminal Procedure Act. Additionally, Mr Rowntree's grounds of appeal did not raise a question of law. The court also concluded that Mr Rowntree's appeal was significantly out of time, and the interests of justice did not support granting leave to appeal out of time given the substantial delay and the lack of merit in the prospective appeal. The victim, who had already given evidence in two hearings, was entitled to expect finality.

The court declined to grant leave to appeal out of time and dismissed the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.