The Queen v Rata - [2007] NZCA 431

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA235/07
[2007] NZCA 431
THE QUEEN
v
CHRISTOPHER TERRANCE RATA
Hearing:17 September 2007

Court:Ellen France, Wilson and John Hansen JJ
Counsel:L C Rowe for Appellant

M D Downs for Crown

Judgment:5 October 2007 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed.
BThe conviction is quashed.
CThere is no order for a retrial.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Ellen France J)
Introduction
[1]       The appellant was tried by a jury on two charges, namely, assault with intent to rob whilst armed with a firearm (s 236(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961), and assault with a firearm (s 198B(1)(a) of the Crimes Act). The jury returned a guilty verdict on the first charge (count 3) and an acquittal on the second (count 4).
[2]       After the jury gave their verdicts the trial Judge, Wild J, convicted the appellant on the charge of assault with intent to rob. The appellant’s counsel then indicated to the Court that he considered the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent and made an application for a discharge under s 347 of the Crimes Act. In a ruling delivered on 7 May 2007, Wild J expressed the tentative view that the verdicts were irreconcilable but dismissed the s 347 application on the basis that there was no jurisdiction to discharge. That was because the appellant had been convicted in open court: HC WANG CRI 2006 083 1684.
[3]       Wild J did not sentence the appellant because he could not see any point in doing so and considered it would be anomalous. In a later ruling on 7 June 2007, Wild J granted the appellant bail pending appeal.
[4]       The appellant appeals against conviction on the grounds that the verdicts are inconsistent and the conviction is unreasonable in terms of s 385(1)(a) of the Crimes Act.
Background
[5]       The appellant stood trial with Patrick Waretini who faced charges arising out of the same incident. Mr Waretini was charged with attempted murder (count 1), assault using a firearm (count 2), and assault using a firearm with intent to rob (count 3).
[6]       Count 3 charged both Mr Waretini and the appellant but they were not charged as parties. Rather, the Crown case was that they were each armed with a firearm and each acted in a way as to satisfy the elements of count 3. Mr Waretini was found not guilty of attempted murder and guilty of the other two charges.
[7]       The incidents giving rise to the charges took place on 3 April 2006. The Crown case was that the appellant and Mr Waretini armed themselves with firearms and went to the complainant’s home that day with the intention of robbing him of his money and possibly also of drugs.
[8]       The complainant gave evidence of the two men arriving and that the appellant had a gun in his hand. The complainant then described being hit on the back of the head by the appellant and the appellant pointing…

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 Rata

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Rata [2007] NZCA 431
Case: [2007] NZCA 431
Decision Date: 5 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was presented with an appeal by Christopher Terrance Rata against his conviction. Rata was convicted of assault with intent to rob while armed with a firearm, and the jury acquitted him on the charge of assault with a firearm. Rata argued that the verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable, leading to an appeal against his conviction. The central legal issue was whether the jury's verdicts, which found Rata guilty of one charge but acquitted him of another based on the same factual circumstances, were reasonable and consistent under the law. The Court needed to determine if the jury's verdicts were logically possible and whether the conviction could stand given the acquittal on a closely related charge.

The Court of Appeal found that the jury's verdicts were indeed inconsistent and unreasonable. The Court reasoned that for Rata to be convicted of assault with intent to rob, the jury must have believed he used his firearm in a specific way, which was also an essential element of the assault with a firearm charge. Since the jury acquitted him on the latter charge, the Court concluded that it was logically impossible for the jury to have held both views simultaneously. This reasoning aligned with the Court's earlier decision in R v Yu and Zhang, where inconsistent verdicts were deemed unreasonable. The Court also considered the Crown's argument that the appeal should not be heard until sentencing, but it decided that the exceptional circumstances of the case warranted an immediate appeal. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and made no order for a retrial.

Orders