Stitt v Police - [2024] NZHC 1188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-586

[2024] NZHC 1188

BETWEEN
DION STITT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 13 May 2024

Appearances:

Appellant in person

R Thompson for the Respondent

Judgment:

14 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 May 2024 at 12 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland Copy to: Mr Stitt

STITT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 1188 [14 May 2024]

[1] The appellant, Dion Stitt, appeals his convictions on four charges: driving while driver licence suspended; aggravated assault and resisting Police (both in relation to a Police Officer, Constable Whitefield) and wounding with intent to injure (a Police officer, Constable Bentley). The guilty verdicts were delivered by Judge Bonnar KC on 22 September 2023 and followed a Judge-alone trial, which took place in June 2022 and continued on July 2023.1 All charges arise from events on 24 April 2020.

[2] On 1 December Judge Bonnar KC sentenced Mr Stitt to seven months home detention on all of the charges.2

[3]The respondent opposes the appeal.

Grounds of appeal

[4] Mr Stitt represented himself. He filed written submissions and appeared on his own behalf at the hearing of the appeal. The appeal grounds are broadly:

(a)the evidence given by Detective Constable Hayden Swann (regarding service of the notice of suspension from driving) was unreliable and inaccurate and his trial counsel failed to adequately cross-examine Detective Constable Swann;

(b)the trial judge made irrational determinations in relation to Constable Whitefield’s version of events;

(c)there is a lack of evidence that Mr Stitt caused Constable Bentley’s injuries; and

(d)trial counsel failed to adequately cross-examine Constables Whitefield and Bentley on their evidence.

1 New Zealand Police v Dion Stitt [2023] NZDC 20373 [Substantive decision].
2 New Zealand Police v Dion Stitt [2023] NZDC 26926.

[5] In relation to appeal grounds (a) and (d) above, in the notice of appeal Mr Stitt refers to an alleged failure to cross-examine “properly and extensively also essentially preventing my oppunity [sic] to a fair defence as he refused to follow my defence instructions”. This appeal was previously set down for hearing on 13 February 2024. On that occasion Mr Stitt was advised by the Court of the process an appellant is required to follow where there is an allegation of trial counsel incompetence. That advice is recorded in a written minute issued on 13 February 2024. The appeal was adjourned to give Mr Stitt the opportunity to file an affidavit.

[6] On 22 March 2024 the Court issued a further minute containing timetable orders if the issue of trial counsel incompetence was to be pursued. Mr Stitt has not filed any evidence. Accordingly, there is no basis for the Court to make a determination on the allegation of refusal to follow instructions. The Court is, however, able to assess the adequacy of the cross-examination…

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 Stitt v Police

Details

AGLC: Stitt v Police [2024] NZHC 1188
Case: [2024] NZHC 1188
Decision Date: 14 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dion Stitt appeals against his convictions for driving while his license was suspended, aggravated assault and resisting a police officer (Constable Whitefield), and wounding with intent to injure another police officer (Constable Bentley). The appeal was heard by Gordon J at the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland. Stitt's grounds for appeal were: the evidence of Detective Constable Swann was unreliable and inaccurate, trial counsel failed to adequately cross-examine Detective Constable Swann; the trial judge made irrational determinations in relation to Constable Whitefield's version of events; there is a lack of evidence that Stitt caused Constable Bentley's injuries; and trial counsel failed to adequately cross-examine Constables Whitefield and Bentley. The court found that the trial judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of Detective Constable Swann over Stitt's evidence. The judge's credibility findings in relation to Constables Whitefield and Bentley were upheld, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that Stitt caused Constable Bentley's injuries. The court also found that trial counsel's cross-examination of Constables Whitefield and Bentley was adequate. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders