The Queen v Lee Anthony Harris

[2002] NZCA 162

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA409/01

THE QUEEN

V

LEE ANTHONY HARRIS

Coram:	McGrath J Anderson J Glazebrook J
Judgment (on the papers)	11 July 2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY MCGRATH J

1. The appellant was convicted by a jury following his trial in the District Court on a count of criminal harassment, knowing that the harassment was likely to cause the complainant reasonably to fear for his safety.  The charge was brought under s8(1) of the Harassment Act 1997.  The appellant was sentenced to 6 months supervision, fined $500 and was ordered to pay costs of $130. 

2. This appeal against conviction is brought on the ground that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence at the trial.  The appeal has been heard on the papers under the Crimes (Criminal Appeals) Amendment Act 2001.  Initially the appellant instructed counsel in relation to the appeal.  That counsel has indicated to the Registrar that he is uncertain of his current position and he has not filed any submissions in relation to the appeal.  That was brought to the attention of the appellant who was notified he should submit his own written submissions in support of the appeal to the Court no later than 4 June 2002.  No submissions have been received from him.  The appeal has accordingly been considered by the members of this Court having regard to the grounds originally given but without the assistance of submissions from the appellant.  The members of the Court have conferred and agreed upon this judgment.

3. The complainant gave evidence that he has known the appellant for twelve to thirteen years.  He told the Court that over a considerable period on a regular basis, the appellant would drive past the complainant’s home and place of work in Masterton.  The appellant would verbally abuse and make derogatory gestures at the complainant.  It seems that there had been a falling out between the appellant and the complainant’s brother about ten years ago over something to do with a car and that this has given rise to the abuse.  It had got intense over the Christmas period the previous year making the complainant feel scared and intimidated.

4. The complainant also gave evidence of an occasion when the appellant had got out of his car and invited the complainant to fight him.  There were a further two similar incidents which the complainant denied having any responsibility for creating.  The first concerned an attempted arson in November 2000 involving the complainant’s Commodore motor vehicle and the second in January 2001 in which one of the complainant’s cars was significantly damaged.  At the trial it was alleged that between the two incidents, while driving by, the appellant made a gesture described by the complainant as “a cigarette lighter motion”.  Furthermore, the day following the second incident, the appellant drove past pointing and laughing at the complainant while he and his brother were putting a cover over a gate to prevent passers-by seeing damage to the car.  It was not however suggested the appellant was responsible for the arson itself.

5. At trial the issue largely came down to one of credibility between evidence given by the complainant and the appellant.  The case advanced by the appellant was that it was the complainant who had been looking for a chance to attack the appellant.  It was put to the jury that the complainant was an untrustworthy witness and that the evidence of the appellant and witnesses supporting him should be believed over that of the complainant.  The complainant was cross-examined by defence counsel about the alleged actions of harassment and about other interactions between the complainant and persons who gave evidence for the defence.  The jury nevertheless convicted the appellant.

6. As indicated the appellant appeals on the ground that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable or could not be supported on the evidence.  We have reviewed the evidence but are of the opinion that there is no basis to justify overturning the decision of the jury.  The appellant was represented at the trial and his counsel cross-examined the complainant testing his credibility before the jury.  This trial involved questions of credibility in particular in relation to the appellant and the complainant.  It is not a case in which it can be said that the jury’s decision was unreasonable having regard to the evidence or that there was no evidence to support the verdict of the jury.  In the end the outcome of the trial was a question of who the jury believed. We are satisfied the appellant had a fair trial and there is no basis for interfering with the verdict of guilty in respect of the charge of harassment.

7. For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors

Crown Law Office, Wellington