Vincent v R - [2016] NZSC 15

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 101/2015
[2016] NZSC 15

BETWEEN	DEAN MICHAEL VINCENT Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	William Young, Arnold and OʼRegan JJ
Counsel:	R M Lithgow QC for Applicant I R Murray and Y Moinfar for Respondent
Judgment:	23 February 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The case

The applicant was found guilty of wounding the complainant with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.[1] In issue at trial was whether he:
(a)could rely on self-defence; and
(b)intended to cause grievous bodily harm.
[1]R v Vincent DC Wellington CRI-2012-078-1364, 28 November 2013 (Judge Davidson).
The charge arose out of an incident in prison between two serving prisoners. In it, the applicant came up behind the complainant and stabbed him four times in the neck using a home-made implement consisting of a tooth-brush handle and metal blade of approximately 80 mm in length. The complainant’s wounds were sutured in hospital and he returned to the prison later the same day. No permanent injury was caused.
At interview the applicant admitted the attack. He claimed that it was, in effect, a pre-emptive strike associated with prior bullying behaviour of the complainant towards the applicant and another prisoner. He said that it was not his intention “to destroy [the complainant] completely”. Rather he “targeted some of the muscles in his neck, [to] cause some trauma … just to … prevent him from … pursuing his policy of antagonising and … exploiting my vulnerabilities”.
Four days before the attack there had been an altercation between the applicant and complainant in relation to concerns by the applicant that the complainant had been kicking a basketball towards him and the other prisoner. He claimed that the corrections officers were not doing anything to protect him and the other prisoner from the threat which the complainant posed to them.
In his evidence at trial the applicant said that his intention had been “to immobilise him to a certain extent” so that “he would have to step back from his aggressive, energetically aggressive, behaviour.”
After the basketball incident, the applicant and complainant had been kept apart, but following discussions with both of them, the corrections officers allowed them to be in the same area together.
The application for leave to appeal is addressed to four aspects of the trial:
(a)The withdrawal at trial by the Judge of self-defence from the jury.
(b)The directions of the trial Judge as to what constituted an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
(c)The absence of an alternative (and lesser charge) and the Judge’s refusal to give the jury the sections of the Crimes Act 1961 which deal with the hierarchy of offences of violence.
(d)Whether there was a sufficient evidential basis for the verdict.

The withdrawal at trial by the Judge of self-defence from the jury

The Judge withdrew self-defence on the basis that on the most favourable view of the circumstances as perceived by the applicant,…

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 Vincent v R

Details

AGLC: Vincent v R [2016] NZSC 15
Case: [2016] NZSC 15
Decision Date: 23 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application for leave to appeal from Dean Michael Vincent, who was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The applicant argued that the trial judge improperly withdrew self-defence from the jury's consideration, provided inadequate directions regarding the meaning of grievous bodily harm, refused to provide the jury with relevant sections of the Crimes Act 1961, and that the evidence did not support the verdict. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed the applicant's appeal, and the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the appeal should be allowed to proceed.

The Supreme Court considered the arguments raised by the applicant. Firstly, the Court found that the trial judge was entitled to withdraw self-defence from the jury, as the applicant's actions could not be regarded as reasonable in the circumstances. Secondly, the Court concluded that the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the meaning of grievous bodily harm, and that the jury was required to determine whether the injuries the applicant intended to inflict were really serious harm, as they assessed it. Thirdly, the Court held that the trial judge's refusal to provide the jury with sections of the Crimes Act 1961 and the absence of an alternative charge did not warrant leave to appeal, as the jury would not have found the applicant guilty unless satisfied that he was guilty of the offence charged. Lastly, the Court dismissed the applicant's claim that the evidence did not support the verdict, as this point was not argued in the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court found that none of the issues raised by the applicant warranted leave to appeal or suggested a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, and the conviction of the applicant remains in place.

Orders