Thompson v The King - [2025] NZCA 9

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA722/2023
[2025] NZCA 9

BETWEEN	JESSE THOMPSON Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	7 November 2024
Court:	Katz, Dunningham and Powell JJ
Counsel:	I A Jayanandan for the Appellant H G Clark for the Respondent
Judgment:	13 February 2025 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Powell J)

Jesse Thompson has appealed his three convictions resulting from a riot that took place in Wellington on 2 March 2022, as police took action to clear protesters who had occupied the grounds of Parliament.
Following a jury trial, Mr Thompson was found guilty of possession of an offensive weapon (the possession charge),[1] being a member of a riot (the rioting charge),[2] and assault with a weapon (the assault charge).[3] He was subsequently sentenced to six months’ community detention, 100 hours of community work and nine months’ supervision.[4]
[1]Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(b). Maximum penalty: three years’ imprisonment.
[2]Section 87. Maximum penalty: two years’ imprisonment.
[3]Section 202C(1)(b). Maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment.
[4]R v Thompson [2023] NZDC 29595.
Mr Thompson’s offending was summarised in the sentencing notes of Judge B Davidson as follows:
[2]       The charges stem from the riot on 2 March 2022 which ended the occupation of Parliament grounds and surrounding streets. Early that morning, the police began a major operation to regain control of the grounds and the streets. You had been at the protest since its beginning, camping in grounds at the nearby law school.
[3]       By early morning of 2 March 2022, it must have been plainly obvious to you that the protest was coming to an end. During the course of the day, you were seen by police officers, and later on reviewed closed-circuit television footage, in possession of a hammer which you said at trial you had used earlier in the morning to clear your campsite. You were first seen with the hammer near the Parliamentary Library and sometime later near the gates to Parliament. It is clear that the jury must have rejected your defence that you had retained the hammer inadvertently and never intended that it would be used in a violent or threatening way.
[4]       The charge of participating in a riot arose around the same time that you were seen with the hammer near the gates. You were seen to be in possession of the hammer. You also had a riot shield, and you were closely associated with others who were throwing various objects at the police. Again, the jury must have rejected your evidence that you were involved as a peacemaker.
[5]       The final charge, that which is the most serious, that of assault with a weapon, occurred towards the end of the day’s events. By around 5.30 pm, authorisation had been given to the police to fire sponge bullets at the crowd, believed to be the first time this has ever occurred in…

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 Thompson v The King

Details

AGLC: Thompson v The King [2025] NZCA 9
Case: [2025] NZCA 9
Decision Date: 13 February 2025 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jesse Thompson has appealed against his convictions for possession of an offensive weapon, participating in a riot, and assault with a weapon, which arose from a riot in Wellington on 2 March 2022. The appeal was heard by Katz, Dunningham, and Powell JJ. The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the trial Judge failed to direct the jury on self-defence, misdirected the jury on the elements of the rioting charge, and failed to properly direct the jury on prejudice arising from contextual evidence.

In relation to the first issue, the Court found that there was no credible or plausible narrative of self-defence available to Mr Thompson. The Court held that Mr Thompson’s evidence was inconsistent and the video evidence did not support a self-defence narrative. The trial Judge was therefore not required to direct the jury on self-defence.

In relation to the second issue, the Court held that the trial Judge correctly directed the jury on the charge of being a member of a riot. The Court found that the Crown was not required to prove that Mr Thompson personally committed an act of violence or to rely on party liability under s 66(1) of the Crimes Act. The Court held that it was enough that violence was used by the group while acting together.

In relation to the third issue, the Court held that the trial Judge’s directions on prejudice were both consistent and appropriate. The Court found that the Judge adequately directed the jury to put aside feelings of prejudice and concentrate on the specific allegations against Mr Thompson.

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders