Turoa v Police - [2016] NZHC 104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-404-307 [2016] NZHC 104

BETWEEN
ABRAHAM RANGI TUROA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 3 February 2016

Counsel:

PT Eastwood for appellant
JV Barry for respondent

Judgment:

9 February 2016

JUDGMENT OF FAIRE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 February 2016 at 12 noon, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

To: PT Eastwood, Auckland

Turoa v New Zealand Police [2016] NZHC 104 [9 February 2016]

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................[1] Factual background ................................................................................................[3]
Matters in the District Court [6] Grounds of Appeal ...............................................................................................[12] Procedural history in the High Court ...................................................................[13] Appellant’s submissions .......................................................................................[20] Respondent’s submissions....................................................................................[25] Analysis ................................................................................................................[31] Result....................................................................................................................[49]

Introduction

[1] Mr Turoa was charged on 25 August 2104 with wilfully committing an indecent assault under s 125(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 which carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment not exceeding two years.1 He was sentenced on 14 January
2015 to 15 month’s intensive supervision.2 He appeals the conviction and sentence

although his counsel advised that the appeal against sentence would not be pursued.

[2] The appellant filed the appeal out of time. The reason given was recorded in the notice of appeal and it was that he was advised he had no basis for the appeal. The respondent takes a neutral position and says little prejudice attaches to the respondent if an extension is granted. I grant an extension of time to appeal.

Factual background

[3] On the 2 August 2014 the appellant went to the Henderson Library on
Ratanui St in Henderson. The complainant and several of her friends were seated at a large table. The appellant sat down directly opposite the complainant. He held a

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 125(1).
2 NZ Police v Turoa [2015] NZDC 20064.

mirror between his legs underneath the table and positioned his body so that he appeared to be reading a book on top of the table when he was actually looking into the mirror. The mirror reflected the complainant’s legs and genital area. The appellant continued to do this for two hours.

[4] The complainant was only made aware of what the appellant was doing when she was approached by Police. The appellant was still sitting opposite the complainant when he was spoken to by Police. He denied the offending. He stated that there was a magnifying glass on the other side of the mirror which he was using to assist with reading.

[5] The facts are not disputed by the appellant.

Matters in the District Court

[6] On the 25 August 2014, a charging document was filed for the offence of indecent act in a public place under s 125(1) of the Crimes Act 1961. The Record of Hearing shows the appellant had interim name suppression granted and was released on bail at that time.

[7] On the 15 September 2014, in the District Court, the appellant pleaded not guilty.

[8] On 30 September 2014, the Court…

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 Turoa v Police

Details

AGLC: Turoa v Police [2016] NZHC 104
Case: [2016] NZHC 104
Decision Date: 9 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Turoa v Police, Abraham Rangi Turoa appealed against his conviction and sentence for committing a wilful indecent act in a public place, as charged under section 125(1) of the Crimes Act 1961. The appeal was heard by Faire J in the High Court of New Zealand. Turoa was charged on 25 August 2014 and pleaded guilty to the charge on 17 November 2014. He was sentenced to 15 months of intensive supervision on 14 January 2015. The primary legal issues before the court were whether a miscarriage of justice would result if Turoa's conviction was not overturned and if the guilty plea could be impugned. The court considered whether the facts admitted by Turoa met the threshold for an indecent act and whether there was any improper pressure applied by the judge or counsel during the plea process.

The court found that the charge laid was for an indecent act in a public place, and the admitted facts were sufficient to satisfy the elements of the offence. The court dismissed the argument that the charge should have been for offensive behaviour, as there was only ever one charge against Turoa. The court also found that there was no evidence of any pressure applied by the judge or counsel for Turoa to change his plea. Turoa's counsel had advised him that he could defend the case and potentially succeed before another judge. Turoa's decision to plead guilty was made voluntarily, and the court was satisfied that no miscarriage of justice would result if the conviction was not overturned.

The appeal was dismissed, and Turoa's conviction and sentence were upheld. The court found no basis for impugning the guilty plea, and therefore, no miscarriage of justice would result from upholding the conviction.

Orders