The Queen v Kasipeani Tahaafe - [2000] NZCA 120

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA100/00

THE QUEEN

KASIPEANI TAHAAFE

Hearing:	27 June 2000
Coram:	Tipping J Heron J Williams J
Appearances:	D G Harvey and G P Mason for Appellant J C Pike for Crown
Judgment:	10 July 2000

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY TIPPING J

Kaisipeani Tahaafe was convicted of sexual violation by rape after trial by jury in the District Court and was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment. He appeals against his conviction.
The charge arose from a single incident in July 1998. The complainant was an 18 year old woman flatting in Palmerston North. Shortly before midnight she decided to go out socialising. She had something to drink at home, then went out to various establishments in Palmerston North and became extremely drunk. The appellant was a taxi driver on duty at the time. He accepted the complainant’s fare and drove her home, returned to a money machine so that the complainant could get some cash, and then drove her home again. The complainant’s evidence was that when they got to her home she had difficulty controlling herself because of her drunkenness. The appellant assisted her in getting out of the cab, helped her with the keys to enter her flat and assisted her to bed. There, the offence allegedly occurred. The following morning the complainant became aware that something untoward had occurred but she could not recall what. When questioned by her flatmate as to whether she had been raped she responded “I think so”.
The case is unusual in that there was no direct evidence of sexual activity or of the penetration of the complainant. Because of the complainant’s intoxicated state at the relevant times, her recollection of events up to the time the appellant dropped her at home was sketchy, and to some extent inconsistent with the evidence of at least one other witness who encountered her during the evening. The complainant had very little recollection of the events that occurred inside the flat and no memory of any act of penetration or intercourse. She could recall being driven home and helped through the front door. She could remember getting into bed and being naked from the waist down. She could also recall seeing the accused in the bedroom, also naked from the waist down. The complainant believed that her tampon had been removed and she subsequently located it near the end of the bed.
The appellant initially lied to the police about what had happened. In a later statement his explanation of events was that he had, due to her intoxicated state, assisted her into the house. At her request he helped her to remove her boots. He said he then went the toilet and while his pants and underwear were down the complainant grabbed his penis from behind and tried to get him to have intercourse with her.
The Crown based its case on circumstantial evidence, particularly for proof of the essential element…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The Queen v Kasipeani Tahaafe and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] NZCA 120
Decision Date: 10 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Kasipeani Tahaafe involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant, Tahaafe, for sexual violation by rape. The trial took place in the District Court, and the case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant was sentenced to three and a half years in prison, and the appeal was against his conviction. The primary issue in this case was whether the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence available to them, particularly in light of the circumstantial evidence presented by the Crown. The appellant contended that the inferences the Crown sought to persuade the jury to draw were unsafe and improper.

The court addressed the appellant's concerns about the credibility of the complainant, the appellant's credibility based on his alleged lies, and the explanation of events given by the appellant regarding the alleged penetration. The court found that the jury was entitled to assess the complainant's credibility and take it into account when evaluating her evidence. Additionally, the court ruled that the jury was entitled to consider the appellant's credibility based on the evidence of his lies and to draw their own conclusions on this matter. Regarding the explanation of events, the court held that it was open to the jury to find that the appellant's semen was found inside the complainant and that there was some degree of penetration, even if it was not full intercourse.

In terms of the Judge's directions on the drawing of inferences, the court found that the directions were not deficient and that the jury was properly instructed to not convict unless they were satisfied of penetration to the required standard. The court concluded that the jury's conclusion that the appellant penetrated the complainant was not mere speculation or guesswork and was supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant was upheld. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand found that a verdict of guilty was open to the jury on the evidence and that the Judge's directions on inferences were not deficient. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appellant's appeal against his conviction.

Orders