I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA57/2018 [2018] NZCA 344. ANTHONY DONALD GROOBY Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Williams, Brewer and Thomas JJ

Transcription

1 NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY SS 203 AND 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA57/2018 [2018] NZCA 344 BETWEEN AND ANTHONY DONALD GROOBY Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 23 July 2018 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Williams, Brewer and Thomas JJ E Huda for Appellant P D Marshall for Respondent 3 September 2018 at 4.00 pm JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The appeal against conviction is dismissed. REASONS OF THE COURT (Given by Thomas J) [1] The appellant, Anthony Grooby, was found guilty by a jury of 10 charges of sexual offending against three sisters, R, M and E, in 2011 when they were between five and eight years old. 1 He appeals his convictions on two grounds: 1 Two counts of sexual violation, Crimes Act 1961, s 128B; six counts of doing an indecent act on a child under 12, s 132(3); and two counts of doing an indecent act with intent to offend, s 126. GROOBY v R [2018] NZCA 344 [3 September 2018]

2 (a) aspects of R s evidence were irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial and wrongly admitted; and (b) propensity evidence from a fourth witness was wrongly admitted and the Judge erred in directing the jury regarding the required standard of proof for that evidence. Background [2] Following the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes, the three victims moved with their father to Mr Grooby s house in the Tasman Bay region. They moved to their own house nearby shortly after. In 2015, the two eldest, M and E, told their mother Mr Grooby had abused them whilst they were staying at his house and living nearby. R initially denied that Mr Grooby had offended against her but in 2017 made allegations similar to those of her sisters. [3] R described one event. She was asleep with her father on a bed in Mr Grooby s lounge. Mr Grooby was also sleeping in the room. Both her father and Mr Grooby had been drinking. R awoke to see Mr Grooby taking off her father s trousers, sucking his penis, kissing him and trying to get him to suck Mr Grooby s penis. When Mr Grooby saw R was awake, he put his hand down her pants and inserted a finger into her vagina. He also rubbed her chest and vaginal area under her clothes. R s father has no memory of being sexually assaulted by Mr Grooby. [4] E described two events. The first occurred when Mr Grooby was babysitting E and M. They were asleep. She awoke to find him rubbing her stomach and trying to put his hands inside her pyjama pants. He rubbed her bare chest, inserted his finger into her vagina, and rubbed his penis over the top of her vagina. She pushed him away and he went into M s room. She later saw him masturbating. The second event occurred when E was sleeping in a room with other children. She awoke to find Mr Grooby touching the top of her vagina. He left when he heard E s father laughing in the lounge. [5] M described Mr Grooby waking her up by jumping on her bed and attempting to place his hands inside her pyjama pants. When he did not succeed, he rubbed her

3 vaginal area outside of her pyjamas. She resisted, managing to push him off the bed. He later forced M and E to watch him masturbate in the lounge, to the point of ejaculation. [6] Evidence was also called from Ms B. She had been friends with Mr Grooby s daughter when they were teenagers. She recalled staying overnight at Mr Grooby s house, sleeping on the couch in the lounge. She awoke to the sound of a man masturbating right next to her. She covered her head with a blanket and did not see Mr Grooby, but he was the only man in the house. She reported this to her mother, who went to the police, but no charges were laid. R s evidence District Court decision [7] In her evidential interview with the police, R said: And um he, he first done disgusting things with my dad when I was on the bed. And then came over to me and done disgusting things to me. Well the first I felt shaking on the bed, so I woke up and then Tony was taking my dad s pants off and his dad s pants, and his pants off. And, and I just thought, I just faked that I was being asleep cos I wanted like to wake dad up, but he was, he was drunk on that night as well so he s a really deep sleeper when he s drunk. So, and, and Tony looked at me but he didn t, he saw that my eyes was open, that s when he came to me. Um he, so when he pulled dad s pants down, but he, he done like tried to get him to s-, um, he started um sucking my dad s private part and then he tried to get my dad to do it to him and then he kissed my dad and then he saw that I was awake. And then he came over to me and he started tryna pull my pants down. R went on to describe Mr Grooby s assault on her. [8] On 16 November 2017, the trial Judge, Judge Ruth, ruled this aspect of R s evidence admissible. The Judge did not consider the evidence either propensity or background narrative but part of R s description of how the event occurred.

4 He concluded the evidence had to be part of the trial and proposed to direct the jury to mitigate any prejudice as far as possible. Was the evidence relevant? [9] Section 7 of the Evidence Act 2006 (the Act) provides: 7 Fundamental principle that relevant evidence admissible (1) All relevant evidence is admissible in a proceeding except evidence that is (a) (b) inadmissible under this Act or any other Act; or excluded under this Act or any other Act. (2) Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible in a proceeding. (3) Evidence is relevant in a proceeding if it has a tendency to prove or disprove anything that is of consequence to the determination of the proceeding. [10] Mr Huda, for Mr Grooby, submitted that R s evidence was not relevant to the principal issue at trial: whether the alleged incidents occurred. Instead, it was erroneously admitted as bad character evidence. [11] Mr Huda referred to Keil v Police, where this Court reversed a finding of admissibility of a police officer s visual identification of a defendant on CCTV footage on the basis that, while it was material in the sense that identity was at issue, it was not capable of assisting the fact-finders who were equally capable of comparing the CCTV footage with the defendant. 2 There, in discussing s 7, this Court drew a distinction between two kinds of contexts: [20] Evidence will be relevant under s 7 if there is some rational basis for a judge or jury to infer that the offered proof is probative on a material issue in the case. In Bain v R the Supreme Court explained that, in order to be relevant, the evidence must be reasonably capable of influencing the jury or jury s assessment of a material issue: Where relevance to a fact is questioned, the judge must determine whether the evidence is reasonably capable of supporting the fact. It is not enough that evidence is relevant on its face, as Constable Muir s would be in a conversation context. The evidence must be relevant in the context of the Court setting in the sense of being capable of assisting the fact-finder. (Footnotes omitted and emphasis added.) 2 Keil v Police [2017] NZCA 430.

5 [12] Mr Huda submitted the s 7(3) analysis therefore needed to ask: (a) whether the evidence was material to whether the alleged incidents occurred; and (b) whether the evidence had a tendency to prove or disprove whether the alleged incidents occurred. 3 [13] Mr Huda conceded the evidence meets the materiality question. However, he submitted the evidence, like that in Keil, was relevant in conversational context but not in the context of assisting the jury as to whether the alleged incidents occurred or whether R was a trustworthy witness. [14] Mr Marshall, for the Crown, relied on the case of R v Karetai, where this Court upheld the trial Judge s ruling that evidence of an earlier assault by Mr Karetai of a person in a bar was evidence relevant to whether a subsequent assault of another person, the complainant, had been carried out by Mr Katetai. 4 The issue in that case was identification and the evidence was that the earlier assault involved an attempt to obtain a drink or money for a drink. This Court considered the earlier assault went to motive and identification. It was part of the facts surrounding or accompanying the assault at issue, or so connected with it as to effectively be one continuous transaction. This was referred to, prior to the Act, as the res gestae. [15] Mr Marshall then referred to R v Jones, which also predated the Act, and concerned the admissibility of the appellant s admissions and guilty plea to a charge in relation to offending against his partner s daughter at his retrial for offences against her mother. 5 The case was argued on the basis of similar fact evidence (which predated the propensity approach of the Act). This Court was satisfied as to the similar fact basis for admission but also noted: 6 the result could equally have been reached by treating the acknowledged conduct with the girl as part of the res gestae or because it formed part of a linked series of events during the evening from which the jury could draw 3 Citing Bain v R [2009] NZSC 16, [2010] 1 NZLR 1 at [45] per Elias CJ. 4 R v Karetai (1988) 3 CRNZ 564 (CA). 5 R v Jones (2003) 20 CRNZ 583 (CA). 6 At [27].

6 inferences about the [appellant s] state of mind and conduct at the time of the alleged offending. [16] The Court s reasoning implicitly endorsed the Crown submission describing it as the appellant s single-minded pursuit of sexual gratification. 7 [17] In the present case, the Crown did not seek to rely on the evidence of the sexual assault of R s father as a type of propensity evidence or evidence Mr Grooby was in single-minded pursuit of sexual gratification that night, although it could have done so. It was not admitted on that basis and was not used by the Crown on that basis. [18] R s father gave evidence. He confirmed that he sometimes slept in the lounge with R. He confirmed he was a heavy drinker at the time, slept like a baby after drinking heavily and would be pretty hard to wake up. He confirmed at times he had no memory of what had happened the night before and had blackouts. As noted, he has no memory of Mr Grooby sexually assaulting him. [19] In Mr Huda s submission, had R s father corroborated her allegation that Mr Grooby first sexually assaulted her father, it would be relevant but, as he could not, it was not relevant. We question the logic of that approach and are unable to see a distinction in relevance which depends upon whether R s father agreed he had been sexually assaulted or not. That would either support or weaken R s credibility but would not affect the relevance of her evidence. [20] R s evidential interview began with a question to her about her allegation of having been sexually assaulted by Mr Grooby. She started her account by saying: And um he, he first done disgusting things with my dad when I was on the bed And then he came over to me and done disgusting things to me. [21] That clearly, in R s mind, set the scene. [22] R described being woken by the feel of the bed shaking and then seeing Mr Grooby removing her father s pants and his own. She said she faked being asleep. She wanted to wake her father but said he was drunk and a really deep sleeper when 7 At [20].

7 drunk. She described Mr Grooby looking at her and when he saw that her eyes were open, that was when he came to her. R said she did not know what to do because she was in shock. [23] We are satisfied the evidence was relevant as R s recollection of events immediately before she was assaulted. It included what woke her up, what she saw when she woke up, who was in the room and in what state, and how the assaults against her began. It explains why Mr Grooby moved from his failed efforts to arouse R s father to sexually assaulting R, why R s father slept through the sexual assault on R while lying beside her, and why R did not try and rouse her father to assist her. All these factors tended to prove whether the assault on R occurred or not. This aspect of her evidence was an integral part of her account, which was of one episode or a connected series of events which would have been artificial to exclude from the jury s consideration. 8 It was also probative of Mr Grooby s state of mind at the time. [24] We are satisfied the evidence assisted the jury in its consideration as to whether R s allegations were true or not. It was therefore relevant to the proceeding. Should ss 40 and 43 have been considered? [25] Mr Huda then seized on the Judge s reference to background narrative evidence and submitted the evidence should have been considered and found inadmissible pursuant to ss 8, 40 and 43 of the Act. He pointed to passages in Mahomed v R, 9 where McGrath and William Young JJ discussed ss 40 and 43 in relation to bad character evidence and admissibility principles prior to the Act, and to this Court s analysis in Perkins v R. 10 He suggested ss 40 and 43 applied to narrative evidence such as that provided by R and was incorrectly admitted. He drew an analogy with this Court s decision in A (CA195/2016) v R, where an appeal against conviction was allowed in circumstances where background evidence of a family dynamic was used to bring in evidence of dubious relevance Karetai, above n 4, at 567. See also R v Te Pania [2007] NZCA 429 at [10]. 9 Mahomed v R [2011] NZSC 52, [2011] 3 NZLR 145 at [57(d)] and [60] [61]. 10 Perkins v R [2011] NZCA 665 at [20] and [27]. 11 A (CA195/2016) v R [2016] NZCA 635.

8 [26] This case can readily be distinguished from A (CA195/2016) v R where the appellant successfully appealed his convictions for sexual offending against three women because irrelevant and prejudicial evidence of domestic violence by the appellant against his wife was admitted at trial. That evidence was clearly irrelevant to the sexual offending. The Court found it was not a case in which the complainants evidence against the appellant needed explanatory amplification by reference to events happening within the family. 12 It described the evidence as blackening the appellant s character and being unable to add anything of value to the complainants account of the alleged offending against them. 13 [27] The Supreme Court in Taniwha v R cited with approval the minority judgment of McGrath and William Young JJ in Mahomed when discussing background or relationship evidence. 14 It said: [63] William Young J noted that propensity evidence relating to interactions between a defendant and a victim may have an important explanatory value in terms of the background or relationship between those involved. This includes situations where the events are so interconnected with the alleged offending that the jury will not be able to understand properly what happened without hearing evidence about them. (Footnotes omitted.) [28] Background or narrative evidence can therefore fall within the propensity rules. However, the disputed portion of R s evidence is properly understood as her description of what happened to her rather than as background or relationship evidence and it did not fall to be considered under ss 40 and 43. Was the evidence unfairly prejudicial? [29] The Act provides a general exclusion if the probative value of evidence is outweighed by the risk of it having an unfairly prejudicial effect. 15 [30] Mr Huda submitted the evidence was unfairly prejudicial, saying it was inflammatory. He referred to the fact the Crown prosecutor reminded the jury of R s 12 At [23]. 13 At [23]. 14 Taniwha v R [2016] NZSC 121, [2017] 1 NZLR 116, citing Mahomed v R, above n 9, at [90]. 15 Evidence Act 2006, s 8.

9 evidence that she was grossed out and shocked by the alleged offending against her father. Whilst acknowledging the Judge gave directions regarding this evidence, Mr Huda submitted the direction was focused on the moral prejudice rather than reasoning prejudice, and the risk of a verdict based on unfair prejudice remained. [31] We reject the claim the evidence was unfairly prejudicial and agree with Mr Marshall that the assaults on R and her father were so intertwined there was little risk of bad character reasoning. Avoiding such reasoning was the subject of directions from the Judge both at the start of the trial and in summing up. [32] Moreover, the issue of possible illegitimate prejudice arising from the admission of R s evidence was counterbalanced by the fact it could be considered helpful to the defence. As defence counsel alluded to in closing, R s evidence of the alleged sexual assault against her father could be viewed as undermining her own evidence. He labelled the evidence preposterous. It was certainly an unusual claim. R s father had no recollection of being sexually assaulted and gave evidence to that effect. In addition, R did not disclose offending against her until two years after her sisters had done so. The jury clearly assessed R as credible and reliable, in spite of these issues. Were the Judge s directions adequate? [33] In his summing up, the Judge said: [84] In relation to R, [the prosecutor says] that she was grossed out by what Mr Grooby was doing to her father, and then turned his attention on to. I repeat what I said at the start of the trial. Mr Grooby is not on trial for anything in relation to what he might or might not have done to [R s father]. It is simply part of R s narrative. It is how she explains what happened to her by reference to what she says was happening when her attention was first drawn. You are not to reason, if you do think something untoward went on between Mr Grooby and [R s father], that this in some way make him more likely guilty of the charges, particularly against R. It does not. It is simply part of the narrative and how she recalls the incident leading up to her abuse. [Again], it is a matter of what you accept and what you reject. (Emphasis added.) [34] At the start of his summing up, the Judge directed the jury to put aside any feelings of sympathy or prejudice. When discussing R s evidence, he instructed

10 the jury that Mr Grooby was not on trial for anything which he might have done to R s father. The emphasised portion of the direction satisfactorily warned the jurors not to follow an illegitimate reasoning process. The Judge did not err in his directions. [35] For these reasons, the ground of appeal relating to R s evidence is dismissed. Fourth witness evidence [36] Ms B gave the following evidence when asked of her recollection of a particular night staying at Mr Grooby s house when she was about 16 years old: I d gone to bed. Ah, I was sleeping on the couch. And I woke up to heavy breathing, um, it was, yeah, the noises of someone masturbating right next to me. [37] She believed the person masturbating was Mr Grooby because he was the only man in the house. [38] Prior to Ms B giving evidence, the Judge gave a direction to the jury explaining the evidence that was forthcoming and saying: [2] Now, the purpose of hearing this evidence is that on the Crown case, that it shows, if you accept the evidence, that this man has an unusual sexual interest in younger girls. Now, therefore, it is led on the basis of coincidence, reasoning the Crown s position will be, I have no doubt, that it is more than a coincidence that if this event did happen, then it provides a basis upon you could then assess the evidence about Mr Grooby. [3] What I want to hasten to add, and this is important, is that you must not, if you accept the evidence you are about to hear, simply assume that he has done it before, he is doing it again. That is not the reasoning process. [4] What you are entitled to do is in assessing whether the complainants have told you accurate and reliable and truthful information, you may take that matter, in other words, what the girl is about to tell you now, into account in that assessment. It is only a tool by which you measure credibility. It is not a case, I repeat, of saying, If we think he has done it before, he is likely to have done it again. That is not why you are hearing it. That would be quite prejudicial and unfair. But it is acceptable for [the] jury to take account of the evidence. Again, you will have to determine whether you accept the evidence or not, but if you do, then please recognise the limitations that there are upon your use of that evidence.

11 [39] In summing up, the Judge directed: [53] for present purposes what I want to say to you is that the purpose of the evidence is to show, on the Crown view of things, that this man who you can accept has what is an inherently unusual sexual interest in young girls, a sexual interest upon which he acts, and the purpose of that being before you is that if you accept the evidence, you are entitled to bring it to bear in assessing whether you accept the evidence of the three complainants or any of them. Because what is really being said is that this evidence displays, because of the similarity, particularly in relation to charges 7 and 9, acts of a very similar kind, and the legal view of it is that it is demonstrative of a distinctive sexual regard for young girls on Mr Grooby s behalf. [54] If you accept the evidence as well it can also inform your decision as to whether this is a person who might be apt to taking significant risks to fulfil that sexual interest, if you accept that interest is present. That is important in this case too because, as you know, there have been matters raised as to the plausibility of these acts happening where there are other people present. Mr Sandston s position is that if there are other people in the room, or there is a high risk of being caught out, it makes it less plausible that the act would happen. You have to ask yourselves, do you accept that? Might it be that the heightened risk is part and parcel of the thrill? You might ask yourselves is the fact of excessive alcohol consumption, which seems to be uncontested here, indicative of a lowering of inhibitions to the point where risks do not even come into it? [55] So you need to ask yourselves those things, but the point of the propensity evidence is that if you accept the evidence of [Ms B], then you are able to bring it into account when you think about what you accept or reject in the evidence from the three complainants. As Mr Sandston correctly said, you cannot use the evidence of the three girls to substantiate what [Ms B] said; it is the other way around. [90] Mr O Donoghue says that if you accept the evidence of [Ms B], then it does show that Mr Grooby does have this unusual sexual interest in children, and acts upon it whenever that arises, and you can use that when you assess the complainants evidence, and I have already spoken to you about that. Was the evidence properly admitted as propensity evidence? [40] Mr Huda submitted Ms B s evidence was not admissible as propensity evidence in accordance with ss 40 and 43 of the Act. It does not appear there was any challenge to this evidence, either before or at the trial itself There is authority to the effect that in these circumstances an appellant must show the reason the evidence was not challenged prior to trial comes within the criteria for defence counsel error: R v P [1996] 3 NZLR 132 (CA) at 135; and see R v Collins [2009] NZCA 519 at [18]. However, the Crown did not take the point in this appeal and we do not consider we are precluded from considering the admissibility of the evidence in these circumstances.

12 [41] Propensity evidence is evidence that tends to show a person s propensity to act in a particular way or to have a particular state of mind. 17 The prosecution may only offer propensity evidence about a defendant if it has probative value in relation to an issue in dispute which outweighs the risk the evidence may have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the defendant. 18 The Court must take into account the nature of the issue in dispute when assessing the probative value of the propensity evidence. 19 [42] In Mohamed, the majority of the Supreme Court explained propensity evidence as follows: 20 [3] The rationale for the admission of propensity evidence rests largely, as William Young J says, on the concept of linkage and coincidence. The greater the linkage or coincidence provided by the propensity evidence, the greater the probative value that evidence is likely to have. It is important to note, however, that the definition of propensity evidence refers to a tendency to act in a particular way or to have a particular state of mind. It is necessary, therefore, that the propensity have some specificity about it. That specificity, in order to be probative, must be able to be linked in some way with the conduct or mental state alleged to constitute the offence for which the person is being tried. [43] Mr Huda accepted that sexual attraction to children and acting on that attraction is considered highly unusual. 21 However, drawing a bright line between children and a girl of about 16 years of age, he submitted it was incorrect to find that allegations of masturbating in front of a 16 year-old 15 years ago can establish a propensity to be sexually attracted to children and to act upon that attraction. [44] Mr Huda characterised the behaviour as creepy but not illegal, although he did accept the fact of Ms B being a 16-year-old friend of Mr Grooby s daughter provided a context which favoured admission. [45] We consider it is wrong to draw a bright line between the definition of a child and a girl of 16 years old to discredit the proposition that Ms B s evidence disclosed Mr Grooby s tendency to have a sexual interest in girls and act upon that interest for 17 Evidence Act, s 40(1)(a). 18 Section 43(1). 19 Section 43(2). 20 Mohamed v R, above n F (CA7/2018) v R [2018] NZCA 100 at [32].

13 his sexual gratification when they are in his house, asleep and vulnerable. 22 As the Crown noted, Mr Grooby was considerably older than Ms B. In addition, she was a 16-year-old friend of his daughter staying the night at his house, putting him in a position of trust and responsibility. [46] In considering single incident propensity, this Court has considered the threshold in s 40(1) to be comparatively low, because: 23 [28] The conduct in question need only tend to show a propensity, or inclination, to act in a particular way, or to have a particular state of mind. If a tendency is established, the specific admissibility rule in s 43 governs whether the propensity should be admitted at trial. [47] This Court has decided on a number of occasions, including in the context of sexual offending, that a single prior incident may suffice to demonstrate propensity. 24 [48] We agree with Mr Marshall s submission that the evidence had substantial probative value in relation to the key issue: whether the three victims were telling the truth. [49] Ms B s evidence bore a striking similarity to that of the three victims. Those significant similarities, as well as the absence of evidence of collusion, overcome the facts that Ms B was older at the time of the offending than the others and that over 10 years have passed since the incident. The evidence of the three victims demonstrated how Mr Grooby s propensity had developed, from masturbating in the presence of Ms B, to doing the same in the presence of M and E but also indecently assaulting and sexually violating the three victims. [50] Furthermore, the propensity evidence available to the jury was not limited to a single incident the evidence of all three victims was also propensity evidence in relation to each other. This added weight to the probative value of Ms B s evidence 22 The propensity demonstrated by Ms B s evidence can be described with more specificity than the Judge did. In the circumstances of this case, nothing turns on this. 23 Leaitua v R [2013] NZCA See the recent examples of Turner v R [2018] NZCA 192; Garraway v R [2015] NZCA 611; Latifi v R [2014] NZCA 11; and Leaitua, above n 23.

14 and outweighed any risk of prejudice by the jury engaging in illegitimate bad character reasoning. [51] Any prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of Ms B s evidence and was appropriately dealt with by the Judge s directions on how to treat this evidence, and how to reason from it. [52] We are satisfied Ms B s evidence was admissible propensity evidence. Did the Judge err in his directions on the standard of proof for propensity evidence? [53] Mr Huda then submitted the Judge erred in his directions on the standard of proof for the alleged propensity. The Judge told the jury they could use the evidence in the way he directed if they accepted Ms B s evidence and accepted the alleged propensity. [54] The propensity provisions in the Act are silent as to the relevant standard of proof. However, this Court in R v Holtz, a decision which pre-dates the Act, rejected a general requirement that any pattern of behaviour must be found beyond reasonable doubt before similar fact evidence may be used. 25 [55] Mr Huda submitted that Holtz was wrongly decided and ought to be overturned, citing a decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Mitchell v R. 26 [56] Propensity evidence is a form of circumstantial evidence which the fact finder can take into account in considering the allegations at issue in the trial. That the criminal standard of proof is not required of propensity evidence has been confirmed in recent decisions of this Court. 27 The Judge did not err in his directions. 25 R v Holtz [2003] 1 NZLR 667 (CA). 26 R v Mitchell [2016] UKSC 55, [2017] AC 571 at [39] [44]. 27 For example R (CA602/2016) v R [2017] NZCA 107 at [28]; R v Gan [2016] NZCA 354 at [19]; T (117/2015) v R [2015] NZCA 572 at [25] [26]; and T (CA702/2012) v R [2013] NZCA 505 at [15].

15 [57] For these reasons, the ground of appeal relating to Ms B s evidence is also dismissed. Result [58] For the reasons given, the appeal against conviction is dismissed. Solicitors: Patient & Williams, Christchurch for Appellant Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent