The King v Ahere Gillies Isiah Buchannan

[2024] NZHC 2858

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2024-020-000640

[2024] NZHC 2858

THE KING

v

AHERE GILLIES ISIAH BUCHANNAN

On the papers:

Counsel:

S B Manning for Crown

E J Forster for Defendant Gillies
T M Cooper KC and S J Bird for Defendant Buchannan

Judgment:

2 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

[Crown application to lead hearsay evidence]

[1]    The defendants are charged with the murder of Javon Aranui. It is alleged that they took part on a joint attack on him by kicking, stomping, and punching him, including to his head. Two neighbours witnessed the attack, one of whom called 111 while the attack was ongoing. Mr Aranui got to his feet after the attack ended, and Police saw and spoke to him a short distance from the scene. He did not want to discuss what happened or make a statement. He told Police the incident happened at a different location.

[2]    Ambulance officers then arrived and spoke to Mr Aranui, who told them he had been riding his bike home from Havelock North when he was jumped by two people. He told the ambulance officers he had received multiple blows and punches

R v GILLIES & ANOR [2024] NZHC 2858 [2 October 2024]

to his face and, when he was on the ground, he was kicked in the head. His condition then deteriorated rapidly on the way to hospital and he subsequently died from his head injuries.

[3]    The Crown has filed a hearsay notice pursuant to s 22 of the Evidence Act 2006 as it seeks to offer the hearsay statements of what Mr Aranui told the ambulance officers.

[4]    Counsel for each defendant have advised that there is no opposition to the Crown hearsay notice.

[5]    Having reviewed the application and the evidence, I considered the defence concessions were responsibly made and there was no need for the scheduled hearing of the Crown’s application. My brief reasons for that conclusion follow.

[6]    The statements the Crown seek to adduce fall in the category of hearsay as defined in s 4 of the Evidence Act, given they are statements made by a person other than a witness and are sought to be offered in evidence to prove the truth of their contents.

[7]    Hearsay statements are admissible in the circumstances set out in s 17 of the Evidence Act; relevantly, they are admissible under s 18 when the maker of the statement is unavailable as a witness and the circumstances relating to the statement provide reasonable assurance that the statement is reliable.

[8]    The statements in this case are made by a deceased person who is clearly unavailable.

[9]    I agree with the Crown’s submission that the circumstances relating to the statements provide reasonable assurance the statements are reliable. They are statements made by Mr Aranui in answer to questions by the ambulance officers, where it would have been clear they were relevant to the treatment Mr Aranui was to receive. The statements are specifically about where and how he had been attacked

and were made within minutes of the attack ending to people who were obviously there to assist Mr Aranui.

[10]   There is nothing that would call Mr Aranui’s veracity into question, given he was speaking to ambulance officers about what had just happened to him. In addition, the content of his statements are consistent with eyewitness descriptions.

[11]   The last consideration is whether the probative value of the statements outweighs the risk of an unfairly prejudicial effect on the proceedings. The Court must also consider the right of a defendant to offer an effective defence. In this case the probative value of the evidence is high, being direct evidence of what Mr Aranui says happened to him. Any prejudicial effect of the admission of the evidence will be legitimate. As the Crown notes, in any case, the jury will hear from two eyewitnesses about the attack in broadly similar terms as Mr Aranui described.

[12]   Accordingly, the hearsay evidence of Mr Aranui’s statements as contained in the formal statements of the two ambulance officers, Paul Goodwin and Ella Merchant, is admissible at the defendants’ trial.

[13]   For completeness, I note that the Crown also intends to lead what Mr Aranui said to the Police officers. No opposition has been raised to that statement either. I agree that it is admissible. It is not being led to prove the truth of its contents, but instead will relevantly provide a full picture to the jury of what Mr Aranui said after the attack on him.

Result

[14]The Crown’s application to lead hearsay evidence is granted.

Grau J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Napier