Wyllie v The Queen - [2016] NZCA 613

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA204/2016
[2016] NZCA 613

BETWEEN	JACK WYLLIE Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	18 October 2016
Court:	Cooper, Brewer and Peters JJ
Counsel:	N P Bourke for Appellant I R Murray for Respondent
Judgment:	15 December 2016 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
B The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cooper J)

Following an incident in Turangi on 4 January 2015 the appellant was charged with common assault and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. At a trial before Judge McGuire and a jury in the Rotorua District Court he was convicted of both charges. He was sentenced to a term of five years’ imprisonment on 25 February 2016.[1]
[1]Wyllie v R [2016] NZDC 3099.
The appellant now appeals against his conviction, claiming that a miscarriage of justice occurred because propensity evidence was wrongly admitted against him in respect of both charges, or at least in respect of the wounding charge, and, further, that the Judge’s directions on propensity evidence exacerbated the prejudicial effect on him.
The appeal was filed out of time, apparently because of communication difficulties experienced by the appellant in prison. The Crown takes no issue with an extension of time to the date when the notice of appeal was filed. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.

Background

The Crown’s case at the trial was that the appellant and the complainant, K, had a mutual friend by the name of Jack Ripohau. From time to time Mr Ripohau and K went hunting together. K met the appellant through Mr Ripohau.
On 4 January 2015 K went to Mr Ripohau’s home in Turangi, having been hunting with him on the previous day. Mr Ripohau was not present. His daughter directed K to the appellant’s home. K went to the appellant’s home where the appellant and Mr Ripohau were and joined them for “a few drinks”. After a period drinking together, K claimed that the appellant suddenly attacked him, punching him in the head three times. K alleged that when he then went to leave he was further attacked by the appellant, this time with a baseball bat with spikes protruding from it. He was struck in the leg, suffering three wounds. He described in evidence walking as well as he could to a nearby property where he knew the occupants. However, their door was closed to him and he continued to walk in the vicinity before being seen and picked up by a stranger who took him to the Turangi Medical Centre.
The police were called and came to the medical centre to speak to him. On the basis of their discussion with him they drove to the vicinity of the address where they believed the attack had taken place. There they observed the appellant and an associate. Detective Bagley had a conversation with…

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 Wyllie v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wyllie v The Queen [2016] NZCA 613
Case: [2016] NZCA 613
Decision Date: 15 December 2016 at 3.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal by Jack Wyllie against his conviction for common assault and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Wyllie argued that the admission of propensity evidence relating to a previous assault on the complainant was erroneous and prejudicial, and that the trial judge's directions on this evidence exacerbated its prejudicial effect. The appeal was initially filed out of time due to communication difficulties experienced by Wyllie while in prison. The Crown did not contest the extension of time for filing the notice of appeal, leading to the grant of such an extension. The Court considered whether the evidence of the previous assault was correctly admitted and whether the trial judge's directions on this evidence were fair and prejudicial.

The Court found that the evidence of the previous assault was properly admitted as it was relevant to show hostility towards the complainant and Wyllie's state of mind. The Court also held that the trial judge's directions on the propensity evidence were not unfair, and the jury would have been able to consider the evidence in an unbiased manner. Consequently, the application for an extension of time to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed.

Orders