Taueki v Police - [2016] NZHC 1775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2016-485-15

CRI 2016-485-16 [2016] NZHC 1775

BETWEEN
PHILLIP DEAN TAUEKI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 21 June 2016

Counsel:

Appellant in Person
E FitzHerbert for Respondent

Judgment:

2 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

Introduction

[1] Mr Taueki was convicted in the District Court of assault using a weapon (his motor vehicle) and assault. He was sentenced to six months’ home detention. He appeals both conviction and sentence.1

[2] The victim was a member of the Horowhenua Rowing Club who had arrived at the club rooms on his bike. Mr Taueki has long been in dispute with the rowing club over its occupancy of the buildings and the manner in which they use the lake. CCTV evidence shows the victim, on his bike, approached by Mr Taueki in his car. There is a brief discussion before Mr Taueki reverses forcefully and drives forward straight at the victim who leaps out of the way. A clearly agitated Mr Taueki then
leaves his vehicle and approaches the direction where the victim has leapt to. CCTV

1 New Zealand Police v Taueki [2016] NZDC 1059 (conviction) and [2016] NZDC 7245 (sentence).

footage ends. The allegation is that Mr Taueki then grabbed the victim around the throat.

[3] In order to understand the complaints about the trial, it is necessary to understand that Mr Taueki’s connection to Lake Horowhenua, and what status and powers he enjoys in relation to it, have been the subject of much dispute and litigation. Some of that history is reviewed in a Supreme Court decision considering another incident between Mr Taueki and rowers. In that proceeding two convictions
for assault were confirmed.2 Mr Taueki was denied a defence of defence of property

(Crimes Act 1961, s 56) because, amongst other reasons, he was held not to be in peaceable possession of the area in front of the clubhouse where the assaults occurred.

[4] Mr Taueki, who acted for himself in the present proceeding, made it clear he wished to introduce much of this history into the present trial by way of cross-examination, and perhaps his own evidence. The District Court confined the matter to the events of the day. There is no ruling on this, but it seems clear that is what occurred. The record indicates that the Judge was unaware of the Supreme Court decision when so limiting the case. However, the Judge had read it prior to delivering verdicts, and considered it was supportive of the limits he had imposed.

[5] Mr Taueki submits these limits were wrong, and hindered him in his defence. He makes similar complaints about a second thread of his defence, namely what he says was an inadequate police investigation. Mr Taueki wished to explore the history between him and investigating officers with a view to showing bias. Part of that bias is said to flow from the refusal of the police to accept decisions that show Mr Taueki has…

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 Taueki v Police 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] NZHC 1775
Decision Date: 2 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Phillip Dean Taueki appeals both his conviction and sentence in the District Court, where he was found guilty of assault using a weapon and assault. The conviction and sentence are appealed to the High Court of New Zealand. The appeal concerns the evidence presented during the trial and the sentence imposed. The victim, a member of the Horowhenua Rowing Club, was assaulted by Mr Taueki in his car, which Mr Taueki drove directly at the victim. CCTV evidence corroborates this claim. Mr Taueki argues that the District Court erred in limiting the scope of the evidence he could present, specifically concerning the history of his dispute with the rowing club. He also argues that the police investigation was inadequate and biased, which may have affected the outcome of the trial.

The High Court found that the exclusion of historical evidence was not a source of an unfair trial, as the evidence was irrelevant to Mr Taueki's explanation of his conduct. Furthermore, the Court found that the poor investigation did not cause a miscarriage of justice. The credibility of the witnesses was also examined, with the Court finding that the witnesses' evidence was reliable and that the CCTV footage clearly showed Mr Taueki driving at the victim in a dangerous manner. The Court also found that the District Court did not err in its conclusion that Mr Taueki grabbed the victim's throat, as it was open to the Judge to find the charge of assault proved.

The Court considered the sentence appeal, acknowledging that assault with a weapon is a serious offence. However, given the absence of actual harm, the Court found that the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment was excessive. Instead, the Court imposed a sentence of five months and two weeks' community detention, considering the public interest in Mr Taueki's work involving Lake Horowhenua and the fact that the victim was not hurt. The sentence is to commence three working days after the release of this judgment.

Orders