The Queen v Helps - [2003] NZCA 93

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA45/03
THE QUEEN
v
KEVIN THOMAS HELPS
Hearing:26 May 2003

Coram:Gault P
Fisher J
O'Regan J
Appearances: D L Bates and M Bates for Appellant

K Raftery for Crown

Judgment:27 May 2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY GAULT P

[1]       The appellant was found guilty by a jury in the High Court at Auckland of the offence of manslaughter. On 5 December 2002 he was sentenced to imprisonment for six years with a minimum period to be served of three years. He now appeals against his conviction and sentence.
[2]       In the early morning of 2 February 2002, the appellant twice approached prostitutes in the Otahuhu area. One was the deceased and the other was the principal witness for the Crown, Ms Tuhoro. On the second occasion he agreed to engage the services of the deceased. She entered his car and the appellant drove to a dark area of a nearby carpark. By that time Ms Tuhoro was also in the carpark, a short distance away, in a car with another client. A scuffle ensued between the appellant and the deceased which brought Ms Tuhoro to the scene. In the course of the scuffle the deceased was stabbed. Already unconscious, she was removed from the car across the appellant’s knees and left on the ground, the knife with which she was stabbed beside her. She was dead from loss of blood when help summoned by Ms Tuhoro arrived. As soon as the deceased was out of the car the appellant drove away but, before he did so, Ms Tuhoro had grabbed the keys from his car. The appellant took steps to destroy all evidence that might identify him as being present. He cut part of the carpet out of his car, and, when he discovered that the police were in possession of his key, he smashed all the locks. He disposed of the wrecked car but the police recovered it before it was crushed. The appellant, eventually when his apprehension become inevitable, went to the police and admitted his involvement but claimed that the stabbing was accidental.
[3]       At the trial defence counsel cross-examined Ms Tuhoro at great length and brought out inconsistencies between her evidence and prior statements. She acknowledged that she had lied to the police to conceal her own activity immediately before the critical events in the appellant’s car. She maintained, however, that before she reached the appellant’s car she heard the deceased say “He’s got a knife. I’ve been stabbed”. That evidence was in sharp conflict with the statement made to the police by the appellant and confirmed by him when he gave evidence. He claimed that the deceased had taken glue or some similar substance from her bag to sniff; that he decided he wanted her out of the car; that he leaned over to open the passenger’s door to push her out but the handle broke; that when he tried to wind down the window…

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 Helps

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Helps [2003] NZCA 93
Case: [2003] NZCA 93
Decision Date: 27 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Kevin Thomas Helps, was found guilty by a jury in the High Court at Auckland of manslaughter, following the death of a woman he had engaged as a prostitute in the Otahuhu area. The appellant appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The appeal centered on whether the evidence at trial established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's actions constituted an unlawful act resulting in the death of the deceased, as required by the Crimes Act 1961. The Crown's case was that the appellant stabbed the deceased during a struggle in his car, leading to her death. The appellant, on the other hand, claimed the stabbing was accidental.

The Court of Appeal held that it was open to the jury to accept the principal witness's evidence, despite the inconsistencies and lies brought out in cross-examination. The Court found that the jury was entitled to accept the witness's account of hearing the deceased claim she had been stabbed before the witness arrived at the scene. The Court concluded that the appellant's appeal against conviction should be dismissed, as the evidence was sufficient to prove an unlawful act causing death. The Court also dismissed the appeal against sentence, finding that the Judge's imposition of a minimum sentence of three years was justified given the seriousness of the offending. The Court observed that the appellant's conduct, including the use of a knife, the vulnerable state of the victim, and the callousness shown in disposing of the victim and the vehicle, warranted a sentence that would adequately punish, deter, and denounce such conduct.

Orders