Legal Research
Cases
Taueki v R

Taueki v R

Case [2013] NZSC 146 17 December 2013

Defence of Property

Peaceable Possession

Reasonable Force

Limitations on Use of Force

Mens Rea & Intention

Limitation Periods

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 64/2012
[2013] NZSC 146

BETWEEN	PHILIP DEAN TAUEKI Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	11 March 2013
Court:	Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers* and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	G J X McCoy, Q Duff and K J McCoy for Appellant F R J Sinclair and J E Mildenhall for Respondent
Judgment:	17 December 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

(Given by McGrath J)

Introduction

Mr Taueki, the appellant, is a member of Muaupoko, within whose rohe lies Lake Horowhenua and its surrounding land. That land, and the bed of the lake, are vested in trustees appointed by the Maori Land Court on trust for the beneficial owners, one of whom is Mr Taueki.
Since it was formed in 1938, members of the Horowhenua Sailing Club have been sailing on the lake. For many years the Club has maintained a clubhouse on land by the shore.
On 14 September 2008, an incident occurred on the shore of Lake Horowhenua in the vicinity of the clubhouse when Mr Taueki prevailed on Club members not to launch a motorboat on the lake. As a consequence Mr Taueki faced three charges of assault against members of the Club and, following trial in the District Court by Judge alone, he was convicted on two of those charges.
Mr Taueki appealed to the Court of Appeal against his convictions but the appeal was dismissed. He has been given leave to appeal to this Court against one of the two convictions, on the ground that he had a defence under s 56 of the Crimes Act 1961, a provision authorising the use of force in defence of property. Mr Taueki’s contention is that he was in peaceable possession of the land where the incident took place and was justified in using reasonable force to prevent the complainant, who was about to take his boat onto the lake, from trespassing on that land.

Background to prosecutions

On 14 September 2008, the Club was holding its first training and racing day for the season on Lake Horowhenua. Anthony and David Brown, who are father and son and members of the Club, were present. Anthony Brown was the race officer for the Club. He had arrived at the lake early and was making arrangements for the start of sailing. He removed the Club’s rescue motorboat from the shed, attached it to the tow bar of his car and started to prepare for putting the boat into the water.
Mr Taueki saw this activity. He was concerned at the use of a motorboat. In his view it was a speedboat which was not permitted on the lake. As well, he was concerned that the boat had not properly been cleaned. Mr Taueki drove over to the Club and parked his vehicle in front of the clubrooms. He got out and approached Mr Brown, who was inside the rescue boat. Mr Taueki was angry and yelling. Precisely what he…

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 Taueki v R

Details

AGLC: Taueki v R [2013] NZSC 146
Case: [2013] NZSC 146
Decision Date: 17 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Philip Dean Taueki appeals against his conviction on one of three charges of common assault. The Crown accepted that the appellant had intentionally applied force to Anthony Brown, who was preparing to launch a motorboat on Lake Horowhenua. The appellant contends that he was in peaceable possession of the land where the incident took place and that he was justified in using reasonable force to prevent Anthony Brown, who was about to take his boat onto the lake, from trespassing on that land. The appellant submits that he was acting in defence of property under s 56 of the Crimes Act 1961, which provides that everyone in peaceable possession of any land or building is justified in using reasonable force to prevent any person from trespassing on the land or building or to remove him therefrom. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and leave to appeal to this Court was granted. The Court holds that the appellant was not in possession of the land where the incident took place, and that the defence under s 56 was not available to him. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders