Conflicting witness evidence leads to not guilty finding

Ruapehu Bulletin, Volume 13, Issue 601, 29 August 1995, Page 14

Conflicting witness evidence leads to not guilty finding

Quinn Henare, 19, kiwi-fruit picker of Te Puke (formerly of Raetihi) represented himself when he appeared on 10 August for a defended hearing on a charge of -male assaults female' in Ohakune on 3 1 July 1 994. He had been remanded from 15 June 1995. The first prosecution witness was the complainant, Morwenna Herewini who testified that she started receiving phone calls from Henare in March last year about 2-3 months before the assault took place. The first call - in which Henare identified himself - was to ask " if I would go out with him" but when told that she wasn't interested because she already had a boyfriend, Ms Herewini said she continued to receive anonymous calls lasting a minute or two over the next "couple of months". Witness said she had been able to recognise Henare' s voice because she had known him since primary school. She said the phone calls stopped after she was assaulted, the last call she received being to the effect: "If you don't go out with me I will come and get you as well as your boyfriend". This call was made on 31 August about 2-3 hours before the assault. On that night she had been at home in Ohakune when she went to the door in response to a knock. She was asked by this person to come out and speak to a cousin who was sitting, drunk, in a white car parked in front of the house. As she reached the car she was attacked, being punched twice in the face then being kicked in the stomach when she fell to the ground. Even though it was "quite dark" she said that she was able to identify Henare (who was wearing a visor-type as opposed to an eye-hole balaclava) by his eyebrows, eyes and upper part of his nose. The next two prosecution witnesses were Police constables David Schwaab of Mt Maunganui and Graham Rumble of Ohakune, who both took statements from the defendant after interviewing him in Te Puke and Raetihi respectively. Henare said he didn't know the complainant well and denied making any contact with her for more than two years saying that he had no reason to assault her. Henare told the Court that on 31/8/94 he had been attending a house-warming party at his sister' s home near Te Puke and had gone to work the following morning. He denied travelling from Te Puke to Ohakune to commit the assault before returning to the Bay of Plenty that night. The next defence witness was the defendant's uncle, Thomas Henare, who told the Court that the defendant and he had been working in a Te Puke kiwi-fruit orchard from 8am to 3pm on 31 August last year. They left work to go to a house warming party in

Pukehina in a white Honda Prelude and both he and the defendant had stayed at his sister' s house all night and he had gone to work with the defendant the next morning. When he admitted to drinking "more than a dozen" beers, he denied that he had been so drunk as to not know where his nephew had been all that night. The next defence witness was the defendant's aunt, Jacqueline Henare, who said she had been at the house warming party until about 1 1 .30pm. She said thedefendant had been there all evening.

Judge's summary

In his summing up Judge Lovegrove said that "the prosecution carries the burden of proving the charge and I have to be convinced firstly that the assault took place and secondly that it was the defendant, and no other person, who committed the assault." "This case therefore comes down to a question of credibility". "As far as the complainant, Ms Herewini, is concerned her evidence in the matter of details relating to the assault cannot be questioned. On the other hand the defendant, Quinn Henare, denies that he was in Ohakune on that day and couldn't therefore have been responsible for the assault on the complainant". "The two defence witness have provided evidence in the nature of an alibi supporting the defendant's claim that he had been in Pukehina that night though there were some striking areas of coincidence in their testimony that might suggest rehearsed evidence." "I was most impressed with the evidence of the first defence witness, Thomas Henare, and if he had not been telling the truth he deserves an Oscar for his performance". Given that he would have to accept this evidence Judge Lovegrove said that it would have taken the defendant six hours (three hours each way) to travel from the Bay of Plenty to Ohakune and back that night. And whilst Ms Herewini said she had been able to identify the phone caller's voice as the same as the voice of her assailant she couldn't be absolutely sure of the length of time between receiving the last threatening phone call and being attacked. 'The question therefore arises, as a result of the evidence provided by the defence witnesses, that the defendant was in Pukehina that night, as to whether in fact someone else might have been responsible for the attack on Ms Herewini." "In view of that possibility an element of doubt must arise and I must therefore dismiss the charge".