Hoani Pue-Skellern attempted to challenge convictions for violently beating his partner claiming her victim video statement was unfairly prejudicial but his case was thrown out by the Court of Appeal. Photo / 123rf
Hoani Pue-Skellern attempted to challenge convictions for violently beating his partner claiming her victim video statement was unfairly prejudicial but his case was thrown out by the Court of Appeal. Photo / 123rf
Hoani Pue-Skellern claimed a hospital bed video interview with the partner he viciously assaulted was unfairly prejudicial and its use at his trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed, ruling it was necessary in the interests of justice. , in a decision released thismonth.
Pue-Skellern was sentenced to two years and eight months’ imprisonment in September 2022 after being found guilty of a raft of violence charges which left his partner, who was giving birth to their third child as he was jailed, with a gash to her head and a bruised body.
Almost two years earlier in December 2020, Pue-Skellern’s partner of three years arrived at his Waitara address about 1.30am with their ten-month-old son where an argument developed.
A victim video statement (VVS) was taken by police at 5.06am, where she described receiving her injuries in a prolonged assault by Pue-Skellern, who had been served with a final protection order in September 2020, after previous family violence offences against her.
The couple subsequently reconciled and the victim sought to withdraw her complaint on several occasions.
However, the case went to trial, before a judge and jury, where the woman’s VVS was played as evidence, supported by medical and photographic records along with the attending police officer’s observations.
The victim, who was seven months pregnant, gave evidence but claimed she could not remember many details and under cross-examination by defence lawyer Suzie Abdale recanted a number of statements in her interview.
The Court of Appeal has ruled the use of a victim's hospital bed video interview with police during the trial of the partner who bashed her didn't result in a miscarriage of justice. Photo / supplied
She then accepted she should not have gone to the address at 1.00 am, should not have been drinking and driving and she was responsible for the incident before the judge stepped in and stopped two further similar questions from Abdale.
The victim was then declared a hostile witness at the request of the prosecution.
Pue-Skellern was found guilty of two charges of breaching a protection order and one each of male assaults female, threatening to kill, wounding with intent to injure, assault with intent to injure and kidnapping.
He challenged his subsequent convictions in the Court of Appeal claiming the VVS was unfairly prejudicial and the trial judge wrongly interfered with cross-examination which resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Abdale argued the VVS was damaging to Pue-Skellern’s case due to the hospital setting, beeping of machines, the victim’s visible, unwashed, weeping laceration and her hysterical state.
She also submitted police breached guidelines by not ensuring she was fit to be interviewed and had recorded the VVS immediately when they had two weeks to do so.
In delivering the COA’s ruling in a decision released this month Justice Anne Hinton said it was not considered a miscarriage of justice had occurred.
She said the case was the precise situation where a VVS served the interests of justice and the prosecution would have been prevented without it.
“(The victim) in need of urgent help, brought the offending to the attention of police but later attempted to withdraw the charges against Mr Pue-Skellern and was declared a hostile witness at trial.
“In these circumstances, and in light of the seriousness of the offending, the interests of justice required the use of the VVS.”
The court agreed with the trial judge’s reasoning for allowing the VVS, declaring it the best evidence, showing the victim’s injuries but not highlighting them in any particular or unfair way.
“It shows the complainant in the immediate aftermath of the incident,” his ruling said.
“It is a much clearer picture of her at the time, including her demeanour, rather than the well-made up and the well-dressed witness that will appear in court 18 months after the event.”
Justice Hinton said the victim had only one visible wound, which had been cleaned up and she was remarkably calm given what had occurred hours earlier.
The judge was right to step in and stop Abdale’s questioning of the victim, in fact, he was obliged to do so, she said.
“They were questions which were irrelevant, repetitive and improper as they amounted to victim-blaming.
“Although we make no criticism of him, some of the earlier questions should have been disallowed also.”
Leighton Keith joined NZME as an Open Justice reporter based in Whanganui in 2022. He’s been a journalist for 20 years covering a variety of topics and rounds.
