Steven Ray Churchis v The Queen - [2016] NZSC 128

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 76/2016
[2016] NZSC 128

BETWEEN	STEVEN RAY CHURCHIS Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, OʼRegan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	W C Pyke for Applicant J E L Carruthers for Respondent
Judgment:	28 September 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Mr Churchis was convicted of murder. His appeal against conviction on that charge was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.[1] He applies for leave to appeal against that decision to this Court. He wishes to challenge the trial judge’s directions as to intent and submits that there was a failure to summarise the defence case in that regard.[2]
[1]Churchis v R [2016] NZCA 264 (Stevens, Woodhouse and Wylie JJ) [Court of Appeal judgment].
[2]At trial there were also issues of causation and self defence.
The victim was Mr Linder, a homeless man. He was assaulted by Mr Churchis and sustained head injuries. Some days after the assault he died of pneumonia, which had been contracted as a result of the head injuries.
The trial judge, Venning J, directed the jury that they were to consider Mr Churchis’ state of mind at the time he assaulted Mr Linder.[3] The evidence of the pathologist was that a subdural haematoma around the brain was the primary injury to Mr Linder and that it was likely to have occurred as a result of an accelerated fall to the ground.
[3]This direction was effectively repeated in an issues sheet the jury were given to assist in their deliberations and in answer to a jury question.
It is submitted, on behalf of Mr Churchis, that the jury should have been instructed that they had to be sure about the intention of Mr Churchis at the time he struck the blows that likely led to death – ie at the time he struck the blow that caused Mr Linder to fall to the ground. It was not sufficient to refer generally to Mr Churchis’ intent at the time of the assault, which carried on after that point.
There was conflicting evidence at trial as to when exactly Mr Linder fell to the ground. The defence case at trial was that a single kick to the chest was the most likely cause of Mr Linder falling to the ground[4] and therefore of the brain injury that led to his death. It was submitted that this was similar to a “one punch” scenario and that Mr Linder was more susceptible to injury because of a previous head injury.
[4]One witness, Mr Dalton, said that Mr Churchis kicked Mr Linder in the chest and knocked him to the ground. He then kicked Mr Linder in the head while he was on the ground and stomped on his face and forehead up to 10 times.
The Crown contended in closing that the description of the attack given by Mr Churchis in his police interview was likely to be the most…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Steven Ray Churchis v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NZSC 128
Decision Date: 28 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Steven Ray Churchis sought leave to appeal against his murder conviction. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed his appeal, and he now sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The primary issue for the court was whether the trial judge erred in his direction to the jury regarding the defendant's intent, and if there was a failure to summarise the defence case in that regard. Specifically, Churchis argued that the jury should have been instructed to consider his intent at the precise moment he struck the blows that led to the victim's death, rather than his intent at the time of the assault generally. The court examined the evidence and concluded that the trial judge's direction was appropriate given the nature of the assault and the lack of significant variation in Churchis's state of mind during the attack.

The Supreme Court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury was correct. The Court of Appeal had determined that the assault was a continuous and uninterrupted attack, and it would have been artificial to consider the blows before and after the victim fell separately. The Supreme Court upheld this reasoning, stating that the jury was entitled to consider all blows inflicted during the assault when determining the defendant's state of mind. The court further noted that any differences in the evidence regarding the specific sequence of events did not undermine the overall finding of a sustained and brutal attack. The applicant's submissions did not identify any error of principle in the Court of Appeal's approach, nor did they demonstrate a risk of miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders