Taueki v Police - [2015] NZHC 2809

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-454-000010 [2015] NZHC 2809

BETWEEN
PHILIP DEAN TAUEKI

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 22 October 2015

Appearances:

Applicant in person (with A Hunt, McKenzie Friend) E M FitzHerbert for respondent

Judgment:

12 November 2015

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

[1] Following a Judge alone trial in the District Court at Levin on 7, 8 and 9 July

2014, Mr Taueki was found guilty on one charge of assault. He was found not guilty on two charges of possession of an offensive weapon.1 He was subsequently convicted and discharged on the assault charge.

[2] On 4 December 2014, I dismissed Mr Taueki’s appeal against his conviction.2

Mr Taueki has now applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[3] The proceedings were commenced before 1 July 2013, so the appeal to the

High Court was a general one pursuant to s 115 of the Summary Proceedings Act

1957, and the present application for leave is to be governed by s 144 of that Act. Pursuant to s 144, the High Court may grant leave if the application raises a question of law which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason,
ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for a second appellate decision.

1 Police v Taueki DC Levin CRI-2013-031-169, 8 August 2014.
2 Taueki v Police [2014] NZHC 3088.

[4] Mr Taueki filed two sets of written submissions in support of his appeal, and also filed an application for leave to adduce fresh evidence on the hearing of a second appeal if leave was granted. His submissions focused predominantly on criticisms of factual findings made by the District Court Judge, which I upheld in my decision.

[5] Before the hearing of Mr Taueki’s application, he had been provided with a copy of the written submissions on behalf of the Police opposing leave, in which the requirement for him to make out a question of law that was of general or public importance was spelt out in some detail. At the outset of the hearing, I endeavoured to explain to Mr Taueki the onus that he had to discharge, and he indicated that he understood that onus.

[6] Despite those indications, Mr Taueki’s oral submissions reflected his arguments before me on the hearing of the original appeal, and his written submissions in support of the present application for leave. To appreciate the distinction between Mr Taueki’s determination to pursue a second appeal, and the prospects of such an appeal giving rise to a question of law of general or public importance, a little factual background is necessary.

Factual background

[7] Mr Taueki lives on land beside Lake Horowhenua that is the beneficial entitlement of an iwi with which he affiliates.3 He has been one protagonist in a very long-running dispute over the extent and nature of use made of the lake by others, in particular the Lake Horowhenua Rowing…

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: [2015] NZHC 2809
Decision Date: 12 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Philip Dean Taueki applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against his conviction for assault, which was dismissed by the High Court in 2014. The appeal was governed by section 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, which allows for leave to appeal if the application raises a question of law of general or public importance. Taueki's arguments focused on factual findings made by the District Court Judge, which were upheld by the High Court. He also sought to adduce fresh evidence on the hearing of a second appeal if leave was granted. The court found that Taueki's complaints about his opportunity to prepare his defence had been thoroughly assessed twice, and did not challenge the safety of his conviction such that a miscarriage of justice would result from excluding the proposed evidence. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The legal issue before the court was whether Taueki's application raised a question of law of general or public importance. The court found that Taueki's complaints about his opportunity to prepare his defence had been thoroughly assessed twice, and did not challenge the safety of his conviction such that a miscarriage of justice would result from excluding the proposed evidence. The court was satisfied that none of Taueki's arguments constituted a question of law, and if any were mischaracterised as such, they were not questions of general or public importance.

The court reasoned that Taueki's complaints about his opportunity to prepare his defence had been thoroughly assessed twice, and did not challenge the safety of his conviction such that a miscarriage of justice would result from excluding the proposed evidence. The court found that Taueki's arguments focused on factual findings made by the District Court Judge, which were upheld by the High Court. The court was satisfied that none of Taueki's arguments constituted a question of law, and if any were mischaracterised as such, they were not questions of general or public importance. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court found that Taueki's complaints about his opportunity to prepare his defence had been thoroughly assessed twice, and did not challenge the safety of his conviction such that a miscarriage of justice would result from excluding the proposed evidence. The court was satisfied that none of Taueki's arguments constituted a question of law, and if any were mischaracterised as such, they were not questions of general or public importance.

Orders