Te Moananui v The Queen - [2017] NZCA 88

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA320/2016
[2017] NZCA 88

BETWEEN	MATHEW NGATAI TE MOANANUI Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	14 February 2017
Court:	Wild, Simon France and Duffy JJ
Counsel:	M F Laracy and J W Griffiths for Appellant K S Grau for Respondent
Judgment:	28 March 2017 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Duffy J)

Mr Te Moananui is a sentenced prisoner. Following a jury trial in the Wellington District Court he was convicted of assaulting a corrections officer while in possession of a metal shank, in circumstances that prima facie showed an intention to use the shank as a weapon.[1] He now appeals against that conviction. The sole issue in the appeal is whether the Judge misdirected the jury as to the requirements of the offence.

Facts

[1]Crimes Act 1961, s 202C(1)(b).

As a sentenced prisoner Mr Te Moananui was required to undergo a rub down search before he went into an outside yard. He refused to undergo the search and so was ordered back to his cell. He returned towards his cell, but refused to go inside it unless the corrections officer followed him in. At this time the corrections officer placed his hand on Mr Te Moananui’s shoulder to direct him into the cell. Mr Te Moananui pushed the correction officer’s hand away and a struggle ensued. During the struggle Mr Te Moananui reached into the right side of his track pants and pulled out an improvised metal weapon, commonly referred to as a shank. It was 32 centimetres in length, made from a round metal bar. One end had been sharpened to a point. During the restraint of Mr Te Moananui and attempts to remove the shank from his possession, he attempted to strike the corrections officer with it. He was subdued when a second corrections officer arrived. Mr Te Moananui was subsequently charged with assault with a weapon under s 202C(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961.

Relevant law

Section 202C(1) states:
202C Assault with weapon
(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who,—
(a) in assaulting any person, uses any thing as a weapon; or
(b) while assaulting any person, has any thing with him or her in circumstances that prima facie show an intention to use it as a weapon.

Grounds of appeal

Mr Te Moananui contends the Judge erred in directing the jury to incorporate defence evidence regarding Mr Te Moananui’s actual (subjective) intent into the overall objective inquiry mandated by s 202C(1)(b). He submits that, properly interpreted, an actual intention to use the weapon is a separate element of the offence to be proved to the criminal standard.

Directions to the jury

In his summing up to the jury, Judge Mill directed the jury that they could take Mr Te Moananui’s evidence into account when deciding if all the elements of the charge were made out:
Now in…

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 Te Moananui v The Queen 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: [2017] NZCA 88
Decision Date: 28 March 2017 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Te Moananui v The Queen, the appellant, Mathew Ngatai Te Moananui, appealed against his conviction for assaulting a corrections officer while in possession of a metal shank, in circumstances that prima facie showed an intention to use the shank as a weapon. The sole issue in the appeal was whether the trial Judge misdirected the jury as to the requirements of the offence under section 202C(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. The appellant argued that the Judge erred in directing the jury to incorporate his actual (subjective) intent into the overall objective inquiry, and that intent should be a separate element of the offence to be proved to the criminal standard. The Court considered the language of the provision, the legislative history, and case law on similar provisions to determine the proper interpretation of the section.

The Court found that the proper interpretation of section 202C(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961 imposed an objective inquiry, and the burden of proof was on the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of circumstances that prima facie showed an intention to use the object as a weapon. The Court held that the Judge did not err in the directions given, as the Judge clearly referred to an objective test and allowed the defendant to raise evidence as to his subjective intent. The Court concluded that there was no misdirection and no miscarriage of justice, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders