Titter v Police - [2012] NZHC 2770

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-435-000001 [2012] NZHC 2770

BETWEEN LAURENCE OTENE TITTER Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 16 October 2012

Counsel: J K W Blathwayt for Appellant
I R Murray for Respondent

Judgment: 24 October 2012

In accordance with r 11.5 I direct the Registrar to endorse this judgment with the delivery time of 10.30am on the 24th day of October 2012.

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] On 23 May 2012 Mr Titter was convicted in the Masterton District Court on one charge of injuring with intent to injure. His conviction followed a defended hearing conducted before District Court Judge P A H Hobbs.

[2] Mr Titter now appeals on four grounds, namely:

(1)That Judge Hobbs undertook “an objective analysis of the circumstances” when deciding that Mr Titter did not believe that his
victim had aggressive intentions;

TITTER V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI-2012-435-000001 [24 October 2012]

(2)That Judge Hobbs erred as a matter of fact when he rejected the defence of self-defence;

(3)That the Judge Hobbs applied the incorrect burden of proof in that he required Mr Titter to establish that he was hit in the head with a bottle;

(4)That Judge Hobbs wrongly concluded that the force used to repel the victim was not reasonable in the circumstances.

Background

[3] The incident in question took place on 30 January 2011 in the corridor of a hotel in Masterton. The police case was that after an exchange of words between Mr Titter and his victim, Mr Titter punched his victim several times in the head. As a result the victim received two black eyes and a broken nose. Mr Titter does not dispute the injuries suffered by his victim. His case is that the victim first struck him on the head with a beer bottle and that his actions thereafter were in self-defence.

The District Court judgment

[4] In conducting the defended hearing Judge Hobbs listened to the evidence from Mr Titter and two witnesses called in support of his case. He also heard from an independent witness who was present during the incident. Judge Hobbs also examined a recording taken from a closed-circuit TV that was overlooking the area in question.

[5] In assessing the defence of self-defence the District Court Judge noted that the police were under an onus to prove that Mr Titter was not acting in self-defence. Judge Hobbs posed the following questions:

(1)What were the circumstances as Mr Titter believed them to be? This required a finding of whether or not Mr Titter believed that his victim had aggressive intentions towards him.

(2) Was Mr Titter acting in self-defence?

(3) Was the degree of force used in self-defence reasonable?

First question

[6] In addressing the evidence, Judge Hobbs heard that Mr Titter believed that his victim confronted him and told him “to piss off or I’ll crack you one” which Mr Titter said he believed was a reference to the victim using the two bottles…

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 Titter v Police

Details

AGLC: Titter v Police [2012] NZHC 2770
Case: [2012] NZHC 2770
Decision Date: 24 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court is an appeal by Laurence Otene Titter against his conviction in the Masterton District Court for injuring with intent to injure. Titter was convicted following a defended hearing before District Court Judge P A H Hobbs. The appeal is based on four grounds, challenging the Judge's approach to the evidence, the factual findings made, the burden of proof applied, and the conclusion that the force used was unreasonable. The central issue is whether Titter's actions were justified as self-defence against an alleged attack with a bottle.

The court considered the District Court Judge's approach to the evidence and factual findings. Titter argued that the Judge did not correctly assess the circumstances as he perceived them, instead applying an objective analysis. The court found that the Judge properly considered Titter's subjective belief and did not err in concluding that Titter was not struck in the head with a bottle. The court also examined the CCTV footage and found that it did not support Titter's claim that he was hit with a bottle. Additionally, the court upheld the Judge's credibility assessments of the witnesses, finding that the Judge was in the best position to evaluate the evidence.

Regarding the burden of proof, Titter argued that the Judge required him to prove that he was not hit in the head with a bottle, which he believed was incorrect. The court clarified that the Judge's findings were part of the overall evaluation of whether Titter acted in self-defence, and the burden remained with the Crown to prove that Titter did not act in self-defence.

Finally, the court considered whether the force used by Titter was reasonable. The court found that even if Titter believed he was acting in self-defence, the force he used was excessive and unreasonable. The injuries inflicted on the victim and the victim's apparent defencelessness during the altercation supported this conclusion.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed. The court found that the District Court Judge correctly applied the legal tests, made accurate factual findings, and properly assessed the reasonableness of the force used. Titter's actions were not justified as self-defence, and the conviction was upheld.

Orders