The Queen v Manu'ula - [2007] NZCA 82

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA7/07
[2007] NZCA 82
THE QUEEN
v
ITI MANU'ULA
Hearing:5 March 2007

Court:Chambers, Gendall and Heath JJ
Counsel:J H Wiles and J Scott for Appellant

P K Feltham for Crown

Judgment:20 March 2007 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The appeal is allowed.
B        The conviction is quashed and there is no order for a retrial.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Gendall J)
[1]       The appellant was convicted in the Auckland District Court on 21 October 2006 of the crime of injuring with intent to injure, the alleged victim being his daughter aged 15 months at the time of the offence. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment with leave to apply for home detention. He appeals against his conviction and sentence.
Background
[2]       The appellant was caring for his youngest child on 19 October 2005 whilst his wife was at work. Some time late in the morning the child was taken by the appellant to a relative’s home. The relative noticed that the child appeared to have an injury to her right ear. The police were notified and the child taken by ambulance to Starship Children’s Hospital. Diagnosis by a senior consultant paediatrician revealed that the child had bruising over her head and face, comprising bruising behind her right ear and on the ear itself, swelling to the rear scalp and some bruising below the right eye and across the right cheek.
[3]       The appellant was interviewed on 21 December 2005 at the Auckland Central Police Station, with the aid of a Samoan interpreter, as he was not fluent in English. His explanation was that around noon on 19 October 2005 he was about to feed the child but left her sitting on a chair beside a table in order to obtain a diaper, heard the child crying and returned to find that she had fallen onto the floor. He noted that her ear was red and he comforted her as she was crying because of the pain. He said that the chair had fallen over. There were some other minor marks on the child which could be explained as the product of normal childhood play. The appellant denied assaulting the child or in any way being responsible for her bruising.
[4]       At trial the essential evidence was the appellant’s exculpatory statement recorded on videotape, that of Dr Kelly, the consultant paediatrician, called by the Crown, and of Dr Ferris, an expert pathologist, called on behalf of the defence.
[5]       Dr Kelly’s evidence was that he examined the child on her admission to hospital and concluded that the bruising and other injuries to the face and scalp were not consistent with a fall, whether from a chair or otherwise, but comprised evidence of striking, about the head in the form of a physical assault. On the other hand, Dr Ferris, who did not examine the child but had access to photographs and the medical records and Dr…

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 Manu'ula

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Manu'ula [2007] NZCA 82
Case: [2007] NZCA 82
Decision Date: 20 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v I Ti Manu'ula was heard, where the appellant was convicted of injuring with intent to injure his 15-month-old daughter. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence, which included six months imprisonment with leave to apply for home detention. The main issue in this appeal was whether the conviction was supported by the evidence presented in court. The court had to determine whether the appellant's conviction was reasonable and could be supported by the evidence provided.

The court examined the evidence presented during the trial, which mainly comprised of expert opinions from two medical specialists, Dr Kelly and Dr Ferris. Dr Kelly, a consultant paediatrician, concluded that the child's injuries were consistent with a physical assault, while Dr Ferris, a forensic pathologist, believed that the injuries could have resulted from a complex fall from a chair. The court found that the evidence did not exclude the possibility of the appellant's innocent explanation supported by Dr Ferris' opinion. As both experts expressed differing opinions and Dr Kelly's evidence could not conclusively exclude the "innocent" theory, the court concluded that the jury should have entertained at least a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, deciding that there was no order for a retrial. This decision was based on the fact that the jury might not have been able to reach a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the bruising was deliberately inflicted with the necessary intent, as the evidence presented did not exclude the possibility of accidental injury. The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of expert opinions and the need for conclusive evidence in criminal cases, particularly when the only evidence available is conflicting expert testimony.

Orders