The Queen v Hill - [2009] NZCA 42

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA647/2008

[2009] NZCA 42

THE QUEEN

v

LEWIS HILL

Hearing: 18 February 2009
Court: Ellen France, Harrison and Cooper JJ Counsel: M Datt for Appellant
M D Downs for Crown

Judgment: 27 February 2009 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is allowed and the conviction is set aside.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harrison J)

R V HILL CA CA647/2008 [27 February 2009]

Introduction

[1] Mr Lewis Hill was convicted following trial before a Judge alone in the indictable jurisdiction of the District Court at Hamilton on one charge of aggravated burglary.

[2] Mr Hill appeals on a number of grounds. The only arguable issue is whether

or not the Judge’s finding that at the time of entering the premises Mr Hill intended

to commit a crime therein is unreasonable.

Background

[3] Mr Hill and the complainant, Mr Norman Charlton, both lived in Huntly. Motor vehicles driven by each of them collided in the township one evening in early February 2007. Mr Hill’s vehicle then pursued Mr Charlton’s vehicle. Both cars were driven aggressively before a confrontation occurred. The circumstances were plainly acrimonious but neither man was physically injured.

[4] Mr Hill subsequently learned of Mr Charlton’s residential address which he visited on 16 February. He said that he went there to find out why Mr Charlton had tried to run him down. He said that he took with him a baseball bat for the purposes of protecting himself and of damaging Mr Charlton’s car as retribution for the damage caused to his vehicle during the earlier incident. Mr Hill entered the property and walked to the house. Having left the baseball bat outside on the deck, Mr Hill entered into the lounge through a ranch slider door where he encountered Mr Charlton.

[5] The events which immediately followed were in contest at trial. Mr Hill alleged that he and Mr Charlton were involved in a brief scuffle before the latter drew a knife and approached him. Mr Hill said that he then retrieved the bat from the deck and used it in self defence. He struck Mr Charlton on the head causing moderate injuries.

District Court

[6] Mr Hill was charged with two offences: (1) aggravated burglary in that while committing burglary of Mr Charlton’s premises he had a weapon with him, namely a baseball bat; and (2) injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (or alternatively with intent to injure).

[7] Messrs Charlton and Hill gave evidence at trial along with other witnesses. Judge Clark reserved her decision. She made adverse credibility findings against Mr Charlton but not against Mr Hill. She acquitted Mr Hill on the second count of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm on the ground that the Crown had failed to prove that Mr Hill did not act in self defence.

[8] However, Judge Clark found Mr Hill guilty of the first count of aggravated burglary. It was common…

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 Hill

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Hill [2009] NZCA 42
Case: [2009] NZCA 42
Decision Date: 27 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Hill involves the appeal of Mr Lewis Hill against his conviction for aggravated burglary. Mr Hill was convicted following a trial before a Judge alone in the indictable jurisdiction of the District Court at Hamilton. The appeal to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was heard on 18 February 2009, with the judgment delivered on 27 February 2009. The appeal court allowed Mr Hill's appeal and set aside his conviction.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Judge's finding that Mr Hill intended to commit a crime when he entered the premises was unreasonable. Mr Hill argued that the Judge did not have sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that he intended to commit a crime when he entered Mr Charlton's property. The Court of Appeal examined whether the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence, pursuant to section 385(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961.

The Court of Appeal found that the Judge did not clearly identify the specific crime that Mr Hill intended to commit upon entering the premises, although it was assumed to refer to the crime of assault. The Judge based her inference of guilty intent on several findings of fact, such as Mr Hill's anger, the presence of the baseball bat, and his immediate involvement in a physical altercation upon entering the premises. However, the Court of Appeal held that these facts did not logically support an inference of guilty intent or justify the rejection of Mr Hill's evidence that he entered the premises to seek an explanation for a previous incident. The Court concluded that the Judge's findings were inconsistent with Mr Hill's intention to assault Mr Charlton inside the house, and therefore, the decision to convict was unreasonable.

Orders