Teremoana v Auckland SPCA - [2016] NZHC 733

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-030 [2016] NZHC 733

BETWEEN
TEREPAI NOEL TEREMOANA

Appellant

AND

AUCKLAND SPCA Respondent

Hearing: 11 April 2016

Appearances:

D H P Schellenberg for Appellant
H C Stuart for Respondent

Judgment:

20 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 April 2016 at 9.30 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

TEREMOANA v AUCKLAND SPCA [2016] NZHC 733 [20 April 2016]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Mr Terepai Noel Teremoana, was convicted and sentenced on one charge of recklessly ill-treating an animal with the result that the animal was seriously injured or impaired,1 at the conclusion of a judge-alone trial in the District Court, Manukau on 24 September 2015.

[2] The animal to which the charge relates is a dog, described as a pit-bull terrier cross called Psyko.

[3] Mr Teremoana appeals against his conviction.

Background

[4] The charge against Mr Teremoana relates to the treatment of Psyko during the period of 29 June 2012 to 21 July 2012, where he was said to be living at a property situated at 42 McDivitt Street, Manurewa (the Property).

[5] On 21 July 2012, an SPCA Inspector, Ms Laurie Davis, arrived at the Property following a complaint made to the SPCA by a member of the public about “a tan coloured puppy that’s falling over at the property”.

[6] According to Ms Davis’s evidence, the front door of the Property was answered by a person called Rodney who took her through to the bathroom after she had told him that she was there to follow up a complaint in relation to a dog at the Property. She said she saw Psyko “inside the bath tub lying [sic] like… an oil skin jacket or something like that and it was pretty much just a skeleton with fur, shaking, looking at me.”

Psyko’s condition

[7] Psyko was transferred to the Manukau After-Hours Veterinary Clinic and was seen by Dr Anna Jolly. According to her written statement dated 17 October 2012,
Dr Jolly’s initial examination of Psyko was that:

1 Animal Welfare Act 1999, s 28A(1)(d).

On arrival his heart and respiratory rates were elevated, although they settled on hospitalisation to an acceptable range. His mucous membranes were noticeably pale, dry and tacky… His body temperature was subnormal at
37.8 degrees Celsius.

His demeanour was depressed and he appeared weak, walking with a short stride and hunched back.

… In my 24 years as a veterinarian, this is without comparison; the most emaciated dog I have ever seen…

[8] The following day, Psyko was transferred to the SPCA Auckland at Mangere. He was assessed by Dr Peter McQueen. In his written statement dated 12 June 2013, he summarised Pysko’s condition as follows:

The dog weighed 11.8 kg on our scales. It was emaciated with the ribs, spine, pelvis, and temporal bone obvious. An estimated reasonable weight for this dog would be 19 kg to 21 kg. There…

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 Teremoana v Auckland SPCA 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 733
Decision Date: 20 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr. Terepai Noel Teremoana, appealed against his conviction for recklessly ill-treating an animal, specifically a pit-bull terrier cross named Psyko, resulting in the animal being seriously injured or impaired. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The appellant was convicted and sentenced in the District Court, Manukau, following a judge-alone trial. The central issue in this appeal was whether the District Court Judge erred in finding that Mr. Teremoana was responsible for Psyko's day-to-day care when the dog's owner, Charlie Vaki, moved out of the property.

The court examined the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties. The respondent argued that the Judge's findings were correct, while the appellant contended that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he was responsible for Psyko's care. The court found that the credibility and reliability of the prosecution witnesses were questionable, and the Judge failed to provide reasons for preferring their evidence over that of the appellant. Furthermore, the evidence regarding the conversation between Mr. Teremoana and Charlie Vaki about Psyko's care was inconsistent and unreliable.

The court concluded that there was not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Teremoana had agreed to assume responsibility for Psyko's care, and therefore, the conviction could not stand. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The case highlights the importance of clear and consistent evidence when determining liability under the Animal Welfare Act.

Orders