Teulaka v Police HC Blenheim CRI 2011-406-14

[2011] NZHC 1604

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

CRI 2011-406-14

SIONE PAEA TEULAKA

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         17 August 2011

Counsel:         T F Brunt for Appellant

S K O'Donoghue for Respondent

Judgment:      18 August 2011

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1]      Mr Teuluka was convicted, following a summary trial, of threatening to kill his wife, and with assaulting her.  It was a New Years’ day, and the appellant, who had been drinking, became jealous of his wife’s interactions with other people.  On one occasion he brandished a knife, and threatened to kill her.   On another he cornered her in the bathroom and applied a choke hold to her neck and throat area.

[2]      The complainant’s evidence was corroborated by her 11 year old son who testified to seeing both incidents.  Mr Teuluka testified, and denied the events.  He

said his wife and her son were lying.

SIONE PAEA TEULAKA V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC BLE CRI 2011-406-14 18 August 2011

[3]      A focus of the defence in cross-examining the complainant was on alleged discrepancies in affidavit evidence she had sworn in the Family Court on related protection proceedings. The discrepancies were primarily that in the prior statements the events were described as being over two days, and there was no reference to the son being present.

[4]      The only ground of appeal is somewhat unusual.   It concerns whether a miscarriage has arisen because the complainant was provided with the wrong interpreter.   This necessitated her testifying in Tongan, rather than her primary language of Samoan.  It is said that this frustrated efforts to cross-examine her and the appellant was thereby denied a fair trial.

[5]      There is some material that the appellant can point to in aid of his complaint. Early on in her evidence-in-chief, the interpreter observed:

Can I just clarify something, sir?  This – she is Samoan and she is trying to

actually speak in Tongan to me, and it doesn’t make sense –

[6]      Further, the transcript is extraordinarily disjointed, with a constant need for answers to be repeated.  It can also be observed that a cross-examination based on prior statements can be technically complex, and language difficulties would not assist.

[7]     I am also conscious that an appellant is somewhat hindered in these circumstances as he cannot realistically produce an affidavit from the witness as to what she thought of it all.

[8]      That said, I have come to the view that the appeal should be dismissed.

[9]      First, after that initial observation, there is no further complaint or request for assistance from the interpreter.  Nor is there evidence from him on appeal.  Second, the complainant is not without skills in the Tongan language.  She said before the hearing she would be alright.   Her then husband, the appellant, apparently speaks only Tongan so obviously his wife has some dexterity in the language.

[10]     Third, there is nothing on appeal from the appellant to suggest where errors arose, or difficulties in understanding occurred.  He had with him in the Court his own English-Tongan interpreter.  The complainant’s evidence was given in Tongan which obviously he would understand, as would his personal interpreter.   Neither have come forward to say the complainant did not answer the question, or that her answers were misinterpreted.

[11]     Given these matters, I consider one is entitled to rely on the formal record which discloses questions asked and answered.

[12]     A sentence appeal was not pursued.  I record that it did not appear to me to have any prospects.

[13]     The appeal is dismissed.

Simon France J

Solicitors:

S K O’Donoghue, Crown Solicitor, Nelson, email:  [email protected]
T F Brunt, Wain & Naysmith, Barristers & Solicitors, Blenheim