Wills v Police - [2020] NZHC 2171

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANTS/PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS [OR NAMED WITNESS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE] PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2020-485-43

[2020] NZHC 2171

CHRISTOPHER WILLS

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 25 August 2020

Appearances:

J A Dean and L R Smith for the Appellant M A Heslip for the Respondent

Judgment:

25 August 2020

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1] Mr Wills faced three charges of child assault before Judge Davidson in a judge alone trial in the District Court.1 The three charges arose from three separate events:

(a)An alleged assault between 5 June 2018 and 17 November 2018 of Mr Wills’ 10 year old de facto stepdaughter, J, whereby Mr Wills is said to have grabbed J and threw her down a hallway. He was found not guilty of this charge.

1 New Zealand Police v Wills [2020] NZDC 9784; and Crimes Act 1961, s 194(a), maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.

WILLS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 2171 [25 August 2020]

(b)An alleged assault of the same complainant on 17 November 2018 where Mr Wills is said to have grabbed J around the neck and pushed her onto a vacuum cleaner. He was found guilty of this charge.

(c)An alleged assault of Mr Wills’ nine year old de facto stepson, Z, between 1 September 2018 and 16 November 2018 where Mr Wills is said to have struck his stomach with a garden hose. He was found not guilty of this charge.

[2] Mr Wills appeals his conviction on the second charge on the grounds there is fresh evidence which proves that the offending did not occur in the manner the prosecution witness said it did.

[3] The Crown opposes the appeal. It submits that the evidence should not be admitted, and that even if it is admitted it would not have any effect upon the outcome of the trial.

Factual background

[4] The complainants in this matter are siblings and the eldest children of the Mr Wills’ ex-partner. Mr Wills and the complainants’ mother were in a relationship from 2014 to 2015 and have one child together, born April 2016. From 2016 until the time of the alleged offending Mr Wills would see the complainants and their mother during contact arrangements, which usually took place at the mother’s home.

[5] The three incidents giving rise to the charges are said to have occurred between 5 June 2018 and 17 November 2018. The charge at the centre of this appeal concerns the incident on 17 November 2018 where Mr Wills is said to have assaulted the female complainant.

[6] The prosecution’s case was that on the day of the incident, Mr Wills had gone to his ex-partner’s house to see his daughter. His ex-partner left the house shortly after to…

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 Wills v Police

Details

AGLC: Wills v Police [2020] NZHC 2171
Case: [2020] NZHC 2171
Decision Date: 25 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wills v Police concerns an appeal against a conviction for child assault by Mr. Wills. Mr. Wills was charged with three separate child assault incidents involving his stepson and stepdaughter. The appeal focuses on the second charge, where Mr. Wills was found guilty of assaulting his 10-year-old stepdaughter by grabbing her by the neck and pushing her onto a vacuum cleaner. Mr. Wills argues that there is fresh evidence in the form of photographs of the interior of the house, taken six weeks before the incident, which contradicts the complainant's account of the layout of the room. The Crown opposes the appeal, arguing that even if the fresh evidence is admitted, it does not change the outcome of the trial.

The primary legal issue in this case is whether the High Court should admit fresh evidence on appeal and, if so, whether it would affect the outcome of the trial. The court considered the principles for admitting fresh evidence, which require that the evidence be sufficiently fresh and credible. While there was some doubt as to whether the photographs were truly fresh evidence, the court decided to admit them due to their relevance to the central issue of the case. The court also considered whether the District Court judge erred in rejecting Mr. Wills' version of events and accepting the complainants' account of the incident.

In its reasoning, the court found that the new evidence, while relevant to the layout of the room, did not significantly impact the core issue of whether the assault occurred. The court accepted the District Court judge's assessment that the complainants' evidence was truthful and reliable, and corroborated by various factors, such as the complainant's mother's observation of sprayed liquid in the laundry and the complainant's complaint of a sore throat. The court found Mr. Wills' account of the events to be implausible and not supported by the evidence. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

In conclusion, the High Court found that the fresh evidence was not significant enough to alter the outcome of the trial, and the District Court judge's assessment of the evidence was sound. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for the second charge of child assault was upheld.

Orders