HIKAKA-BEATTIE v R [2023] NZCA 480

HIKAKA-BEATTIE v R [2023] NZCA 480 [4 October 2023]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA310/2023[2023] NZCA 480BETWEEN SHAYDEN COLE HIKAKA-BEATTIEApplicantAND THE KINGRespondentCourt: Cooper P, Palmer and Jagose JJCounsel: O S Winter for ApplicantS R Lamb for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)4 October 2023 at 11.00 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to bring a second appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Jagose J)[1] After judge-alone trial before Judge Northwood in the District Court atPalmerston North on 23 August 2022,1 Shayden Hikaka-Beattie was convicted ofusing a firearm against an enforcement officer (x 2),2 kidnapping,3 failing tostop (x 2),4 and dangerous driving (x 2).5 The Judge imposed concurrent sentences,1 R v Hikaka-Beattie [2022] NZDC 16242 [District Court conviction decision].2 Crimes Act 1961, s 198A(1).3 Section 209.4 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52A(1)(a)(ii), (5), (6) and 114(2).5 Section 35(1)(b).capped by six years and three months' imprisonment for the firearm offences.6 Grice Jdismissed Mr Hikaka-Beattie's appeal against his convictions.7[2] Mr Hikaka-Beattie now seeks leave to bring a second appeal against hisconvictions, effectively only against the firearm convictions. Mr Winter would argueon appeal that the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt the objectpresented by Mr Hikaka-Beattie was a firearm. Accordingly, those convictionsamount to a miscarriage of justice justifying his second appeal.[3] We may not grant leave for a second appeal unless satisfied the appeal involvesa matter of general or public importance, or a miscarriage of justice may have occurredor may occur unless the appeal is heard.8 An appeal is unlikely to give rise to an issueof general or public importance unless it raises an issue of general principle or ofgeneral importance in the administration of the criminal law, including one that hasbroad application beyond the circumstances of the particular case.9 By "miscarriageof justice" it is meant that something has gone wrong with the trial which put at risk amore favourable outcome for Mr Hikaka-Beattie or meant that the trial was unfair ora nullity.10 The threshold is high; not every error will amount to a miscarriage ofjustice.11[4] Mr Hikaka-Beattie's application for leave essentially is to contest the evidentialfoundation for the object he presented to police being a firearm as defined in s 2 ofthe Arms Act 1983. Specifically, Mr Winter would argue on appeal "[t]he area of theobject that would contain the critical componentry for it to qualify as a 'firearm' underthe Act was obscured from view." The argument was the subject of his unsuccessfulapplication for discharge under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011;12 theconcurrent findings of the District and High Courts were that it was beyond reasonable6 R v Hikaka-Beattie [2023] NZDC 3208 at [50]–[51].7 Hikaka-Beattie v R [2023] NZHC 985 [High Court conviction appeal] at [97].8 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 237(2).9 Cancian v Tauranga City Council [2023] NZCA 257 at [7] citing McAllister v R [2014]NZCA 175, [2014] 2 NZLR 764 at [36].10 Criminal Procedure Act, s 232(4); and R v Sungsuwan [2005] NZSC 57, [2006] 1 NZLR 730 at[110].11 Otis v Police [2019] NZCA 231 at [4] citing McAllister v R, above n 9, at [38].12 R v Hikaka-Beattie [2022] NZDC 16199.doubt that Mr Hikaka-Beattie twice presented a firearm to police.13 There plainly wasan evidential basis for the trial Judge to infer the object was a firearm.[5] There is nothing in Mr Hikaka-Beattie's proposed appeal involving any matterof general or public importance, and the application for leave is not presented that way.We also do not see anything occurring relating to trial that may offer the prospect ofany more favourable outcome for Mr Hikaka-Beattie. There is no miscarriage ofjustice.[6] Mr Hikaka-Beattie's application for leave to bring a second appeal isdismissed.Solicitors:WinterWoods Lawyers, Palmerston North for ApplicantCrown Law Office | Te Tari Ture o te Karauna, Wellington for Respondent13 District Court conviction decision, above n 5, at [114]; and High Court conviction appeal, aboven 7, at [90]–[94].