The Queen v Manh Toan Le - [2000] NZCA 199

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA 208/00
CA209/00

THE QUEEN

MANH TOAN LE

AND

TRUONG MANH LE

Hearing:	30 August 2000 (at Auckland)
Coram:	Blanchard J McGrath J Young J
Appearances:	JG Haigh QC and J Wong for Appellants KBF Hastie for Crown
Judgment:	14 September 2000

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY YOUNG J

Introduction

On 17 May this year Manh Toan Le (“Manh”) and Truong Manh Le (“Truong”) were convicted by a jury in the District Court at Papakura on a joint charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. They were later each sentenced to 4½ years imprisonment.
They now appeal against conviction and sentence.

The background facts

The charge arose out of an incident which occurred on 26 February 1999. The two appellants (who are brothers) were driving in a red Honda Accord on Buckland Road in the vicinity of Massey Road, Auckland. The complainant was in a silver/grey Mitsubishi. He pulled out onto Buckland Road from his driveway. There was then an incident involving either an accident or a near-miss between the vehicle driven by the complainant and the appellants’ vehicle.
As a result of this accident (or near miss), there was interaction between the complainant and the appellants. This occurred in two stages. First there was some initial discussion (and on the appellants’ account, an assault by the complainant on Manh). The complainant denied that he had assaulted Manh but said that there was some discussion between him and the appellants in which they alleged that he had damaged their car. The complainant then drove his car around the corner and, having parked it, returned on foot. On his evidence, he drove round the corner because he and the appellants were blocking Buckland Road with their motor vehicles. He said that he returned on foot with a view to resolving with the appellants the debate as to whether there had indeed been an accident involving damage to their car. The appellants claimed that when the appellant returned, he was carrying a knife and this in a context in which he posed a clear threat to their safety. This the complainant denied. It is clear that there was a struggle between the appellants and the complainant, that the complainant was wounded in the head and that he then ran off (down a driveway). He received assistance at the scene and then was treated at Middlemore Hospital. The two appellants drove off.
The Crown case was that the two appellants were the aggressors. The complainant said in evidence that when he returned to the scene, the appellants armed themselves with a jack handle, a wheel brace and a knife (which they took from the boot of their car) and they then attacked him. As a result he received a wound to his head. The Crown also alleged that when the complainant attempted to escape up a neighbouring drive, the two appellants initially sought to give chase before they returned to…

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 Manh Toan Le 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 199
Decision Date: 14 September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this appeal, Manh Toan Le and Truong Manh Le challenge their convictions for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, as well as the sentences imposed upon them. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard the appeal on 30 August 2000 and delivered its judgment on 14 September 2000. The appellants argue that they were inadequately defended by their counsel, that the trial judge gave an inadequate direction on self-defence, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court found that while the appellants' counsel might have better explained the concept of acting in defence of another as a component of self-defence, the omission did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Furthermore, the Court determined that the trial judge adequately directed the jury on self-defence, and that the sentence imposed was excessive, but not to the extent argued by the appellants. Consequently, the appeals against conviction were dismissed, while the appeals against sentence were allowed. The sentences of four and a half years imprisonment were quashed and replaced with sentences of three and a half years.

Orders