Legal Research
Cases
Stevens v The Queen

Stevens v The Queen

Case [2020] NZHC 3290 14 December 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2020-454-01

[2020] NZHC 3290

BETWEEN
ISAAC KEREHOMA STEVENS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 11 August and 8 December 2020

Appearances:

E Hall for the Appellant

J E Mildenhall for the Respondent

Judgment:

14 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1] Mr Stevens appeals against his conviction and sentence on 13 charges of offending against his former partner following a Judge alone trial.1 Judge Edwards imposed a sentence of 10 years four months’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years and two months.2

[2] The appeal is advanced on a number of related grounds, including that the judgment did not properly assess the elements of the various charges, and how the evidence established that those elements were proved. It is contended that the Judge made a number of related errors and that a substantial miscarriage of justice has resulted.

1 R v Stevens [2019] NZDC 20484.
2 R v Stevens [2019] NZDC 25602.

STEVENS v R [2020] NZHC 3290 [14 December 2020]

Course of the appeal

[3] The appeal has had an unusual procedural course. It was first set down for hearing before me on 11 August 2020. At the commencement of the hearing Ms Hall drew to my attention to the fact that the complainant in this matter had sworn an affidavit dated 10 August 2020 in which she withdrew some of her allegations. After the morning adjournment I discussed this further with counsel and it was agreed that the appeal should be adjourned and the matter investigated. I confirmed this by minute dated 11 August 2020.

[4] Subsequently the complainant filed a memorandum dated 14 August 2020 in which she said that she had been coerced into submitting her earlier affidavit. On 22 September 2020 I asked for a telephone conference to be convened to discuss progress. At a telephone conference on 13 October 2020 Ms Hall advised the appellant wished for his appeal to be completed on the basis that the complainant’s recantation (and the withdrawal of it) was to form no part of the appeal, and was to be put to one side. Ms Mildenhall for the Crown confirmed that this was an appropriate approach.

[5] The appeal was then rescheduled before me at a date convenient to counsel. It proceeded before me on 8 December 2020. I confirm that the recent communications received by the complainant have formed no part of my assessment of the appeal.

District Court findings

[6] As will be explained in greater detail, the District Court Judge did not set out her factual findings in a comprehensive way in the reasons for entering the convictions dated 11 October 2019. She did do so in the sentencing notes, however. She described the offending in the following way:

[3] The series…

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 Stevens v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Stevens v The Queen [2020] NZHC 3290
Case: [2020] NZHC 3290
Decision Date: 14 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Isaac Kerehoma Stevens appeals against his conviction and sentence on 13 charges of offending against his former partner. The appeal is advanced on a number of related grounds, including that the judgment did not properly assess the elements of the various charges, and how the evidence established that those elements were proved. The appeal is dismissed. Stevens faced serious charges for a series of different offences involving factual events at a number of different times over a five month period. The trial was conducted over four days. The District Court Judge concluded that the complainant’s evidence was credible and reliable, and that Mr Stevens’ evidence was not. Those findings appear to be the principal reason why she accepted that all 13 charges were proved against Mr Stevens. The Judge’s reasons for accepting the complainant’s evidence were set out in detail. The Judge concluded that the charges would be proved if the events occurred in the way that the complainant had described in her evidence. There was no error in the Judge’s conclusion that the offending would have been established if this evidence was accepted. The central issue, therefore, was whether the complainant was giving honest and reliable evidence about those events to the point where the charges were proved to the required standard. On that issue the Judge set out detailed reasons for accepting her evidence. The reasoning was not as comprehensive and methodical as it could have been, but the elements of the offences were nevertheless covered by the findings. The appeal against sentence is also dismissed. The starting point was within range. The sentence imposed might be said to be towards the higher end, but the approach was open to the Judge. The starting point was not above the available range. The Judge allowed a 14 month discount on the starting point, a discount of approximately 10 per cent. She also allowed a further discount of six months for the guilty plea on three charges he admitted prior to trial. Again whilst a higher discount could have been given this approach is within range. The imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment should not be routine or arbitrary, but the Judge’s reasons for imposing such a period were appropriate.

Orders