The Queen v Harris - [2007] NZCA 390

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA176/07
[2007] NZCA 390
THE QUEEN
v
LEE ANTHONY HARRIS
Hearing:22 August 2007

Court:Arnold, Gendall and Priestley JJ
Counsel:J K W Blathwayt for Appellant

A Markham for Crown

Judgment:6 September 2007 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Gendall J)
[1]       Shortly after midnight on 28 July 2006 Mr Harris was driving a vehicle in the company of a female friend, Ms O’Connell, in central Masterton when it was stopped by police officers on mobile patrol. A large knife was located down the front seat and Mr Harris was found guilty after a jury trial of having the knife with him in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable cause.
[2]       He appeals against his conviction primarily on the basis that the jury’s verdict was not supported on the evidence. Subsidiary grounds advanced were that there was no evidence of intent to unlawfully use the knife; hearsay evidence ought not to have been admitted; and, because the vehicle may not have been lawfully stopped, any subsequent search of it was unlawful.
Background
[3]       The police stopped Mr Harris’s vehicle, they said, to undertake a routine check of registration, driver’s licence, and warrant of fitness. It was not suggested to them in evidence that the stopping was for any other reason. One police officer spoke to Mr Harris and as the vehicle was a left-hand drive, he was nearest the kerb. In the roadway, another officer spoke with Ms O’Connell. He smelt cannabis. Mr Harris and Ms O’Connell were told that they and the vehicle were to be searched pursuant to s 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The odour was not imagined as Ms O’Connell later said that she had “smoked a joint”. She got out of the car so as to undergo a personal search. She took off her jacket and emptied her pockets at the roadside. She then left to go to a toilet at a nearby service station.
[4]       In the meantime, a police officer had thoroughly searched the inside of the vehicle and found nothing that interested him.
[5]       Mr Harris was then outside the vehicle. He agreed to be searched. First, he removed his jacket and placed it on the outside of the vehicle. But he then went to the driver’s door, and removed items from his pocket and placed them onto a seat inside the vehicle. The vehicle was searched again. A number of items that had not initially been present were on the seat inside the vehicle, namely a wallet, some keys and coins, and a sheath for a knife. The knife was located between the back and bottom of the seat. On her return Ms O’Connell said to an officer that the knife was hers. Mr Harris denied any knowledge of the weapon or that it was his.
[6]       The appeal raises the following issues:
(a)Should the jury’s verdict be set…

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 Harris

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Harris [2007] NZCA 390
Case: [2007] NZCA 390
Decision Date: 6 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In The Queen v Harris, the appellant was convicted of possessing a knife in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable cause. He appeals against his conviction, arguing that the jury's verdict was not supported by the evidence. Other grounds of appeal include that there was no evidence of intent to unlawfully use the knife, that hearsay evidence was improperly admitted, and that the vehicle was unlawfully stopped, rendering any subsequent search unlawful.

The appeal hinged on whether the jury’s verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The court held that the verdict was not unreasonable as the evidence permitted the jury to infer that the appellant had placed the knife in the vehicle. The court further determined that the Crown did not need to prove an unlawful intent to possess the knife, as the knife was classified as an offensive weapon per se. The court also found that the admission of hearsay evidence regarding the appellant’s companion’s refusal to make a statement did not prejudice him. Lastly, the court dismissed the argument that the vehicle was unlawfully stopped, as there was no evidence to support this claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

Orders