The Queen v [ ] Dawson - [2004] NZCA 450

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA430/03

THE QUEEN

v

[ ] DAWSON

Hearing: 27 May 2004

Coram:William Young J Williams J
Wild J

Appearances: T K Stevens for Appellant
C J Lange for Crown Judgment: 17 June 2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY WILLIAMS J

Appeal

[1] On 12 September 2003, at the conclusion of her second trial, a jury convicted the appellant, Ms Dawson, on 48 counts of theft as a servant. She was formerly employed as a part-time receptionist at Orana Wildlife Trust, a private zoo, and 45 of the counts related to her thefts from the till at Orana Park on many of the days she was on duty. Two other counts related to theft of two Orana Park T-shirts and a disposable camera. The final count was described as a “wrap-up” count alleging theft of $1937.30 from Orana Park between 29 January 2000 and 6 May 2001, that being a representative count and said by Mr Stevens, counsel for Ms Dawson, to be

R V [ ] DAWSON CA CA430/03 [17 June 2004]

an aggregation of till discrepancies which could not be ascribed to a particular day when Ms Dawson was working or were amounts too small to warrant a separate charge.

[2] This judgment deals with Ms Dawson’s appeal against all convictions. There was no appeal against the sentence of 300 hours community work and reparation of
$13,000.

[3]The grounds of appeal were:

a)That the investigation of the deficiencies was inadequate, particularly because they were conducted by a Mr Stewart, Orana Park’s administration manager, rather than by Police.

b)There was inadequate prosecution disclosure, particularly a failure to retain all Orana Park’s till and EFTPOS records, especially those for days Ms Dawson was not working.

c)That a ruling was wrong which prevented counsel from cross- examining a witness on a remark she allegedly made to the officer-in- charge which was overheard by a juror during the first trial and relayed to Mr Stevens.

d)That the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence.

Investigation and Disclosure Grounds of Appeal

[4] The Crown case was that Ms Dawson was employed by Orana Park as a receptionist and counter sales person, her duties including receipt of admission fees and other payments by means of a cash register and, where the customer wished to use EFTPOS, completing the transaction on a nearby EFTPOS machine. She was also responsible for sales of souvenirs for which there was a separate till. The Crown alleged that up to 25 times daily when the EFTPOS facility was used, Ms Dawson entered the transaction on the EFTPOS machine but failed to enter it on

the cash register. At the end of the day she tallied up the sums rung up on the EFTPOS machine but not rung up on the till and removed that amount of cash. Her actions meant her daily cash register summary still balanced. She was alleged to have stolen money 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.

Continue reading The Queen v [ ] Dawson

Details

AGLC: The Queen v [ ] Dawson [2004] NZCA 450
Case: [2004] NZCA 450
Decision Date: 27 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in The Queen v Dawson concerned the convictions of Ms Dawson for multiple counts of theft as a servant while she was employed at Orana Wildlife Trust, a private zoo. The appeal raised several grounds, including the adequacy of the investigation, the sufficiency of prosecution disclosure, the exclusion of certain cross-examination, and the reasonableness of the verdicts. The Court of Appeal found that while the investigation was conducted by Mr Stewart, the administration manager of Orana Park, rather than by police, this did not render the investigation inadequate. The police had accepted Mr Stewart's analysis and no evidence suggested that the police acted in bad faith. As for prosecution disclosure, although not all till and EFTPOS records were produced, the defence had received all material in police possession, and no miscarriage of justice was demonstrated. The exclusion of cross-examination regarding a conversation overheard by a juror was deemed irrelevant and not prejudicial. Finally, the Court found that the jury had ample evidence to justify the verdicts, and the verdicts were not unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and affirmed the convictions. The appeal against the convictions was dismissed, and the sentences of 300 hours of community work and reparation of $13,000 remained unchanged.

Orders