Wrench v The the King - [2022] NZCA 563

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA261/2022
[2022] NZCA 563

BETWEEN	DANIEL LUKE WRENCH Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	27 October 2022
Court:	Brown, Mallon and Downs JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person M R L Davie for Respondent
Judgment:	17 November 2022 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Downs J)

Introduction

Daniel Wrench was found guilty by a jury of two charges of assault with intent to injure and one of strangulation. He was found not guilty of a third charge of assault with intent to injure. Each of the assault (with intent to injure) charges concerned a headbutt. Mr Wrench had the benefit of legal representation at trial. He appeals against conviction and now self-represents.

Background

Mr Wrench has a manufacturing business. He lives at the property with his wife, Elizabeth Fox. Mr Wrench employed the complainant, Kane Boyce, in his business. Mr Boyce lived at the property as well, in a small, detached unit rented from Mr Wrench.
Work tensions developed between Mr Wrench and Mr Boyce. It is not necessary to elaborate. Eventually, Mr Wrench dismissed Mr Boyce. However, by agreement, Mr Boyce continued to live in the unit.
On 12 February 2021, Mr Boyce and his partner, Taylor Carnachan, went out drinking. Mr Boyce became intoxicated; Ms Carnachan did not (she was driving). When Mr Boyce and Ms Carnachan returned to the unit, Mr Wrench and Ms Fox went to see them. Mr Boyce told Mr Wrench to “get the fuck out” and an argument developed. What happened thereafter formed the basis for all of the charges. In brief, Mr Boyce said:
(a)Mr Wrench headbutted him to the face. The two men then grabbed each other.
(b)Mr Wrench then squeezed his neck, choking him. Mr Boyce said he struggled to breathe.
(c)He pushed Mr Wrench away. Mr Wrench headbutted him a second time, again to the face.
(d)He later removed a decorative wooden axe from the wall to “scare … off” Mr Wrench, but did not use it to strike him. Mr Wrench then headbutted him a third time.
Ms Carnachan said she saw Mr Wrench headbutt Mr Boyce, then strangle him “for a good two minutes”. Ms Carnachan did not see a second or third headbutt but did see Mr Boyce later holding the axe.
Ms Fox called 111 during the incident, at 10.38 pm, but the call was terminated. Ms Carnachan also called 111 at 10.41 pm. She and Mr Boyce each spoke to the operator. The operator then called back at 10.43 pm, and Mr Wrench spoke briefly to him or her. All of the calls were placed in evidence with transcripts:
(a)Mr Boyce said Mr Wrench had headbutted him three times but did not refer to being choked by him.
(b)Ms Carnachan described the incident as a fight and as a brawl, which began after Mr Wrench “came over and started…

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 Wrench v The the King

Details

AGLC: Wrench v The the King [2022] NZCA 563
Case: [2022] NZCA 563
Decision Date: 17 November 2022 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daniel Wrench appeals against his conviction of two charges of assault with intent to injure and one of strangulation. Mr Wrench was found not guilty of a third charge of assault with intent to injure. The appeal concerns the sufficiency of the evidence and the Judge's directions to the jury on self-defence. The appeal is dismissed. The evidence before the jury was sufficient to support the verdicts of guilt. The Judge properly left the defence of self-defence to the jury only in relation to the third headbutt. The Judge did not err in this respect.

Mr Wrench was found guilty by a jury of two charges of assault with intent to injure and one of strangulation. He was found not guilty of a third charge of assault with intent to injure. Each of the assault (with intent to injure) charges concerned a headbutt. Mr Wrench appeals against conviction. He contends the jury's verdicts were unreasonable, and that a miscarriage of justice occurred because the defence of self-defence should have been left to the jury in relation to every headbutt. The appeal is dismissed. The jury's verdicts were not unreasonable. The defence of self-defence arose only in relation to the third headbutt. The Judge properly left the defence to the jury in this respect. Mr Wrench's case at trial, through his lawyer, Mr Couchman, was that the first and second headbutts did not happen. Self-defence is available only in response to, or in anticipation of, the application of force by another person to the defendant. Mr Wrench could not defend himself against force which, on his case, was neither applied nor threatened by another person.

Orders