Legal Research
Cases
White v Police

White v Police

Case [2022] NZHC 118 9 February 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2021-419-000075

[2022] NZHC 118

CRAIG WILLIAM WHITE

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 2 February 2022

Appearances:

J P Keung for the Appellant

D L Young for the Respondent

Judgment:

9 February 2022

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 February 2022 at 11 am Registrar/Deputy Registrar

WHITE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 118 [9 February 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Craig White was convicted on charges of indecent assault,1 assault with intent to injure2 and obscene language3 following a Judge-alone trial before Judge Connell in the Hamilton District Court.4 He was sentenced to seven months’ home detention and ordered to pay $1,000 reparation.5

[2] He now appeals his conviction on the charge of assault with intent to injure and, on an associated basis, his sentence should his conviction appeal succeed.6 He argues that the Judge failed to give consideration to the requisite intention to injure, or mens rea element of the offending; this resulted in a miscarriage of justice and the sentence should accordingly be reconsidered.

Background

[3] On 25 January 2020, the appellant was at a reserve on the edge of Lake Karapiro with his wife, young family and other friends. A younger member of the appellant’s group, apparently the appellant’s son, was operating a jet ski near to the lake shore at an unsafe speed. The two victims and their friends were attempting to launch a boat. The jet ski caused a wake which sent spray into their boat, soaking their belongings including cell phones. Alarmed, some of the group went to speak to the young man operating the jet ski and the rules around operating jet skis at the lake.

[4] Initially lacking in contrition, if not bullish, the young man then appeared to tone down his attitude. The group started to walk away.

[5] As the young woman walked away from the appellant’s group, the appellant said to the young woman, “You have a real nice looking pussy”. Challenged as to what he said, the appellant repeated the comment and told her to come closer so he could “get a better look at it”. The young woman then marched up to him apparently

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 135: carrying a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 193: carrying a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
3      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 4(1)(c)(ii): carrying a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine.
4      New Zealand Police v White [2021] NZDC 6020 [Conviction judgment].
5      New Zealand Police v White [2021] NZDC 24131 [Sentencing notes].
6      Mr White initially appealed his sentence on a standalone basis that the starting point was too high. At the hearing, his sentence appeal was confined to an appeal contingent on the success of his conviction appeal.

to confront him about his comment. As she got closer, the appellant reached out with his left hand and pulled down the…

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 White v Police

Details

AGLC: White v Police [2022] NZHC 118
Case: [2022] NZHC 118
Decision Date: 9 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Craig White was convicted in the Hamilton District Court of indecent assault, assault with intent to injure, and using obscene language. He was sentenced to seven months' home detention and ordered to pay $1,000 reparation. He now appeals against his conviction for assault with intent to injure and, contingent on that appeal succeeding, his sentence. The appellant contends that the Judge failed to consider the requisite intent to injure, or mens rea, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The appeal hinges on whether the Judge adequately assessed the evidence, particularly the element of intent, in line with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The court must determine if the Judge's failure to explicitly address the element of intent constitutes an error that resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that while the Judge did not explicitly address the element of intent, it was necessary to consider whether such intent was established. Despite this omission, the court held that there was no reasonable possibility that another verdict would have been reached. The evidence, including the nature of the offending, the type of force used, and the excess of force, strongly suggested that the appellant intended to injure the victim. Therefore, the court concluded that although the Judge erred in not providing explicit reasons regarding intent, this did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

Orders