Te Wake v Police - [2016] NZHC 1629

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-000107 [2016] NZHC 1629

BETWEEN
KAREN TE WAKE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 18 July 2016

Appearances:

D Nairn for Appellant
C Howard for Respondent

Judgment:

19 July 2016

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 July 2016 at 11.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High
Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland
Copy to: D Nairn, Auckland

TE WAKE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 1629 [19 July 2016]

[1] Following a defending hearing in the District Court at Papakura Ms Te Wake was convicted of an offence under s 21 of the Summary Offences Act 1981, namely that with intent to intimidate Dollar Mataia, she threatened to injure him.1 Judge G F Hikaka sentencing her to 40 hours community work and nine months supervision.2

[2] Ms Te Waka appeals against conviction. She argues an element of the offence was not proved and, in the alternative that she should have been discharged without conviction.

[3] The offending arose out of a domestic incident. The police were called to an address in Papakura following advice that there was alleged offending involving a threat to stab. The appellant had called the police. Three police officers attended. Sergeant Ramsay spoke to the appellant and asked her about the knife. The appellant told her “He has taken it off me” indicating the room next door. The Sergeant then located a male, the appellant’s partner, in that room on the bed. He did not want to speak to the Police. The Sergeant then heard the appellant say that she wanted to stab him, “I’m going to fucken stab you”. The appellant said those words while looking to the bedroom where her partner was. The appellant was arrested. Constable Adams confirmed that he had heard words to the same effect. His evidence supported that of Sergeant Ramsay.

[4] The Judge rejected a submission of no case to answer made on the basis there was no evidence that Mr Mataia was frightened or felt intimidated. The Judge also rejected a submission that the threat was in effect a cry for help by the appellant. The Judge was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there had been a threat to injure Mr Mataia which he said was, of itself, an intimidating thing. The Judge held there was no need for Mr Mataia to be frightened for the offence to be made out.

[5] In support of the appeal against conviction counsel submits again that the
appellant’s intent in making the threat was to ensure she was taken to respite care as her mental health had deteriorated. He submitted she had called the police to ask to

1 New Zealand Police v Te Wake [2016] NZDC 6142.
2 New Zealand Police v Te Wake [2016] NZDC 6146.

be taken into respite care. It is submitted that the Judge had not expressly addressed the intention of the appellant.

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 Wake 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: [2016] NZHC 1629
Decision Date: 19 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Karen Te Wake appealed against her conviction and sentence for threatening to injure her partner, Dollar Mataia, with intent to intimidate him. The incident arose from a domestic dispute, where Ms Te Wake called the police, who found her holding a knife and threatening to stab Mr Mataia. The District Court found her guilty and sentenced her to 40 hours of community work and nine months of supervision. Ms Te Wake argued that an element of the offence was not proven and that she should have been discharged without conviction. The appeal centred on whether Ms Te Wake intended to intimidate Mr Mataia or if her intent was to obtain respite care due to her deteriorating mental health.

The High Court had to decide whether the District Court correctly found Ms Te Wake guilty of the offence and whether the sentence was appropriate. The court considered if the evidence showed that Ms Te Wake made the threat with intent to intimidate Mr Mataia. The court noted that the District Court was entitled to infer, based on the evidence and circumstances, that Ms Te Wake intended to intimidate her partner. The High Court held that there was no need for Mr Mataia to feel intimidated for the offence to be made out. The court also found that given Ms Te Wake's history of previous offences, the sentence was appropriate and rehabilitative.

The High Court dismissed the appeal against both conviction and sentence. The reasoning was that the District Court was correct in finding Ms Te Wake guilty as the evidence supported an inference of intent to intimidate. The sentence imposed was deemed appropriate given her criminal history. The court's judgment concluded that the appeal did not succeed, and the original conviction and sentence stood.

Orders