Vernon v The Queen - [2010] NZCA 383

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA430/2010
[2010] NZCA 383
BETWEENSAMUEL CHARLES VERNON

Appellant

ANDTHE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:11 August 2010

Court:Chambers, Rodney Hansen and Heath JJ
Counsel:J F Mather for Appellant

M D Downs for Respondent

Judgment:18 August 2010 at 2.15 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Leave to appeal is granted, but the appeal is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Rodney Hansen J)
Introduction
[1]        Mr Vernon faces trial in the Auckland District Court on five charges of assaulting a female. The assaults are alleged to have occurred over a period of seven months when Mr Vernon and the complainant were in a relationship. The Crown seeks to adduce evidence of four other assaults said to have occurred over the same period which are not the subject of charges.
[2]        Mr Vernon seeks leave to appeal against Judge Hubble’s decision to admit the evidence of the four additional assaults. Ellen France J directed that the application for leave to appeal should be heard and determined together with the proposed appeal.
Background
[3]        Mr Vernon and the complainant were in a relationship between September 2007 and June 2009. The assaults which are the subject of counts 1 – 5 are alleged to have occurred at the home shared by the couple on 20 September 2008, 27 October 2008, 10 March 2009 and 26 March 2009 and at Maraetai on 19 April 2009. The assaults mainly involved Mr Vernon manhandling the complainant although, in one case, she says he threatened her with a knife and squeezed her around the neck. The complainant says she suffered bruising as a result of the first four assaults and a cut knee and sprained ankle from the last.
[4]        The further incidents of which the Crown wishes to adduce evidence are alleged to have occurred on 11 November 2008, December 2008, 4 March 2009 and 2 June 2009. The second of those incidents is said by the complainant to have occurred in Sydney, Australia. The evidence is that on those occasions Mr Vernon:
·Twisted the complainant’s fingers.
·Punched the complainant on the side of the head and on the left shoulder (in Australia).
·Pushed the complainant against the wall.
·While driving his car, hit the complainant with the palm of his hand and pushed her leg.

District Court decision
[5] Judge Hubble admitted the evidence on alternative bases. He accepted the Crown’s submission that the evidence was relevant as providing a more complete picture of the relationship over the period with which the charges are concerned. The evidence was accordingly admissible under s 7 of the Evidence Act 2006 (the Act). Judge Hubble said the evidence would not have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the proceeding warranting exclusion under s 8 of the Act, noting that the additional incidents occurred over the same period as the assaults which are the subject of charges and were less serious.
[6] Judge Hubble held that the evidence could also be admitted as propensity evidence under…

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 Vernon v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Vernon v The Queen [2010] NZCA 383
Case: [2010] NZCA 383
Decision Date: 18 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Vernon v The Queen involves an appeal against the decision of Judge Hubble to admit evidence of additional assaults by Mr. Samuel Charles Vernon against the complainant during their relationship. Mr. Vernon faces five charges of assault, with the Crown seeking to introduce evidence of four further assaults that did not result in charges. The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the evidence of the additional assaults should have been admitted under sections 7 and 43 of the Evidence Act 2006. The Court found that the evidence was relevant to provide a complete picture of the relationship and was admissible as propensity evidence due to the frequency and similarity of the acts. The Court held that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any unfairly prejudicial effect on Mr. Vernon. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted. The Court emphasised that the evidence was necessary to understand the context of the relationship and the alleged offences, and it did not pose a significant risk of unfair prejudice.

Orders