T v Police HC Greymouth CRI 2009-418-7

[2009] NZHC 2150

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2009-418-000007

T

Appellant

v

POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         22 October and 26 November 2009 (Heard at Christchurch)

Counsel:         AND Garrett for Appellant

M G Robinson for Crown

Judgment:      26 November 2009

JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J

[1]      This is an appeal against conviction. The appellant was charged with injuring with intent to injure.  He entered a plea of not guilty, elected summary jurisdiction, and the case was tried before Judge Callaghan in the District Court at Greymouth. The appellant was represented by very experienced counsel, Mr D J Taffs.

[2]      It is apparent from the judgment given by Judge Callaghan at the end of the trial that the defence was self-defence.  I have read with care the judgment of Judge Callaghan.   It presents to me as a detailed analysis of the important parts of the evidence.   It does not contain any summary of the law on self-defence.   Those

principles are well known to experienced trial Judges and also to Mr Taffs.

T V POLICE  HC GRY CRI 2009-418-000007  26 November 2009

[3]      It was my impression before hearing argument, after reading the judgment, that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to appeal this decision.   I have received a memorandum of submission from counsel for the appellant, Mr Garrett. He  has  followed  a  similar  pattern  of  research  as  I  except,  in  addition,  he  has reviewed  the  transcript  of  the  evidence.    He  has  been  unable  to  identify  any argument that he can usefully advance to prosecute the appeal.  He does not have authority to abandon the appeal.

[4]      I am satisfied that this was a case where the trial Judge had to make findings of credibility which he did and essentially sort out what had happened or what had been proved by the Crown to have happened.   In that context he plainly was considering the arguments of self-defence at the same time as examining the case that was being proved by the Crown.

[5]      I am satisfied that there is no reason for allowing this appeal.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:

AND Garrett, Christchurch, for Appellant

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch, for Respondent