Taueki v Police - [2014] NZHC 3088

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-454-10 [2014] NZHC 3088

BETWEEN
PHILLIP DEAN TAUEKI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 21 November 2014

Appearances:

Appellant in person
D R Davies for respondent

Judgment:

4 December 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

Introduction

[1] Following a Judge alone trial before Judge W K Hastings in the District Court at Levin on 7, 8 and 9 July 2014, Mr Taueki was found guilty of one charge of assault and not guilty of two charges of possession of an offensive weapon.1 On
20 August 2014, Judge Edwards convicted and discharged Mr Taueki. He has nonetheless appealed his conviction.

Background facts and District Court Decision

[2] Mr Taueki lives beside Lake Horowhenua on iwi land. The lake is used by the Lake Horowhenua Rowing Club (the club). The bed of the lake and the surrounding land to the north of a particular survey peg are vested in trustees on trust for the beneficial owners, one of whom is Mr Taueki.2 The land is waahi tapu. The
land to the south of the survey peg is controlled by a local Domain Board.

1 Police v Taueki DC Levin CRI-2013-031-169, 8 August 2014.
2 The judgment records at [38] that Mr Taueki has a 1/1789th beneficial interest in the land to the north of the peg.

TAUEKI v POLICE [2014] NZHC 3088 [4 December 2014]

[3] On 11 February 2013, five members of the club launched two boats onto the lake. Mr Taueki was alleged to have yelled abuse and brandished a baseball bat at the rowers after they launched their boats as they were moving away from the shore. That formed the basis of the first charge of possession of an offensive weapon. The rowers ignored Mr Taueki and continued training for approximately one hour. As they approached the shore at the end of their session they saw Mr Taueki again waving a baseball bat. That formed the basis of the second charge of possession of an offensive weapon.

[4] Mr Taueki then allegedly stood on the side of the lake and threw stones at the rowers. One of the stones was alleged to have hit one of the rowers, Mr Watson, on the thigh. That was the basis of the assault charge.

[5] The Police called evidence from each of the rowers, including Mr Watson. The Police also called evidence from an employee of Horowhenua District Council, the attending Police officers and the officer in charge. Mr Taueki called the Manawatu Police Area Commander, Inspector Handcock, and Mr Taueki’s sister, Ms O’Niell, a Lake Horowhenua trustee. Mr Taueki also gave evidence on his own behalf.

[6] The primary evidence in relation to the assault charge was from Mr Watson who said that as he was coming out of the lake, Mr Taueki started to throw stones in his direction. He said Mr Taueki then put down the bat he had been holding and threw a rock that hit him…

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: [2014] NZHC 3088
Decision Date: 4 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Taueki v Police, the appellant, Phillip Dean Taueki, appealed his conviction for assault, arising from an incident on Lake Horowhenua where he threw a stone at a rower, Mr Watson, causing injury. The District Court had acquitted Taueki of two charges of possession of an offensive weapon but convicted him on the assault charge. The appeal to the High Court centred on three grounds: whether his detention and bail conditions impeded his ability to prepare his defence, whether the police failed to secure his property, and whether the District Court erred in finding that Taueki did not act in self-defence.

The High Court dismissed all grounds of appeal. In relation to the first ground, the Court found that Taueki had ample opportunity to prepare his defence despite his detention and bail conditions, and that the materials he claimed to need would not have altered the trial's outcome. Regarding the second ground, the Court held that there was no basis to attribute responsibility to the police for the loss of Taueki's property, nor was there a connection between the loss and Taueki's ability to prepare his defence. Lastly, the Court upheld the District Court's finding that Taueki did not act in self-defence, stating that the circumstances did not support a genuine perception of threat from Mr Watson.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and Taueki's conviction for assault was upheld.

Orders