Te Huia v The Queen - [2012] NZCA 538

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA494/2012
[2012] NZCA 538

BETWEEN BRIAN EDWARD TE HUIA
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 29 October 2012

Court: Ellen France, Allan and Lang JJ

Counsel: C J Tennet for Appellant
K A L Bicknell for Respondent

Judgment: 19 November 2012 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Allan J)

Introduction

Following a jury trial in the Wellington District Court, Mr Te Huia was found guilty on one count of offering to supply methamphetamine. He was acquitted on six other counts alleging identical offences. All of the charges related to alleged offers contained in text messages sent between 23 and 28 October 2010.
The appellant appeals against his conviction on the ground that the guilty verdict on count two was inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts on the six other counts.

Background

There was little direct evidence at the trial. Much of the evidence took the form of text messages, obtained by the police following execution of a search warrant. The text message evidence was ultimately produced at trial by consent. Authorship was not in issue. Much of the oral evidence was formal in character. It included evidence from Detective Sergeant Dombroski, who gave expert testimony about drug dealing, and in particular, about terms commonly used by those engaged in that activity. It is common ground that the case for the Crown depended almost entirely upon the interpretation to be placed upon the text messages, supported by Detective Sergeant Dombroski’s expert evidence.

The law

On an appeal alleging that the jury has delivered inconsistent verdicts which have rendered a conviction unsafe, an appellant needs to show that no reasonable jury, applying its mind properly to the admissible evidence, could have arrived at the different verdicts. The onus is on the appellant to demonstrate the inconsistency.[1]
[1] R v Wong [2009] NZCA 440 at [27].
The proper appellate approach was succinctly outlined by the Supreme Court in Nevin v R:[2]
The principle is clear and well established; the Court will intervene only where there is no rational or logical explanation for different verdicts.
[2] Nevin v R [2008] NZSC 40 at [2].
A more extended discussion is to be found in R v Shipton where this Court said:[3]
[75] The general principle has long been that a conviction is unsafe if no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could have arrived at the conclusion which was in fact reached (R v Stone [1955] Crim LR 120 per Devlin J). The burden is on the accused to demonstrate that the only explanation for the inconsistency must be that the jury was confused or adopted the wrong approach, thus making the verdict unsafe. Only this can warrant the intervention of an appellate court, and generally there ought to be a curial reluctance to interfere with a jury verdict (R v H [2000] 2 NZLR 581 at 589 per Keith J).
[76]…

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 Te Huia v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Te Huia v The Queen [2012] NZCA 538
Case: [2012] NZCA 538
Decision Date: 19 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Te Huia v The Queen involved the appeal of Brian Edward Te Huia, who was convicted on one count of offering to supply methamphetamine by the Wellington District Court. Te Huia appealed his conviction on the basis that the guilty verdict on count two was inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts on the six other counts related to alleged offers in text messages sent between 23 and 28 October 2010. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of text messages and the expert testimony of Detective Sergeant Dombroski regarding drug dealing terminology. The central legal issue was whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent in a way that rendered the conviction unsafe, requiring the appellant to show that no reasonable jury could have reached the different verdicts.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the text messages and the expert testimony to determine if there was a rational basis for the jury's decisions. The text messages relied upon by the Crown varied in their clarity and context, with some being more equivocal than others. For instance, the text message exchange upon which the Crown principally relied in count two was interpreted by the jury as an offer to supply methamphetamine, while the messages related to counts five, six and seven were found to possibly relate to cannabis instead. The Court found that the jury could have reasonably interpreted the messages differently based on the equivocal nature of some of the text exchanges and the expert evidence presented. The jury's acquittal on counts five, six, and seven, in particular, was based on a reasonable doubt as to whether the offers related to methamphetamine or cannabis. The Court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated that the jury's verdict pattern could only be explained by confusion or an improper approach, thus the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Orders