Man wins appeal for conviction of damages to ex-wife’s car

A man who damaged his ex-wife’s car has successfully appealed convictions of intentional damage because he had a financial interest in the car.

Hawke’s Bay man Mark Ramsay threw stones at his former wife’s car as her car and his car passed each other in opposite directions on two separate occasions.

The first occurred on November 30, 2016. Ramsay drove past his exwife on State Highway 2. She saw his hand outside the driver’s window and heard a loud bang at the front of her car. She pulled over and found a large hole in the grill and damage to the radiator.

The second event occurred two weeks later when Ramsay’s ex-wife, her father, and four young children were driving on SH2 around 5.15pm when Ramsay’s car came from the opposite direction and Ramsay threw rocks that hit the front and top of her car.

Ramsay was charged with three charges of contravening a protection order and two of intentional damage to his ex-wife’s car.

He denied throwing stones on both occasions and appeared in a judge-alone trial before Judge Nevin Dawson in November last year. Evidence included a pile of rocks found in the driving cab area of both of Ramsay’s vehicles. Ramsay claimed he collected rocks and these ones were of interest to him.

Judge Dawson found Ramsay guilty of all five charges and sentenced him to six months’ home detention.

Ramsay appealed the convictions. The appeal was heard by Justice Christine Grice in March.

In a decision released this week, Justice Grice has upheld the convictions for contravening the protection order, but said Ramsay’s appeal against the intentional damages convictions must succeed because Ramsay had been a party to the hire purchase of the car now in the possession of his ex-wife.

In order for the charges to succeed Ramsay would need to have no interest in the car. The charge of intentional damage is covered by Section 269 of the Crimes Act. Ramsay was charged under 269(2) (a), which applies when someone ‘‘intentionally or recklessly, and without claim of right, destroys or damages any property in which that person has no interest’’.

Justice Grice found the convictions ‘‘untenable’’ as Ramsay had an interest in the car.

Barrister Douglas Ewen said the case pointed to the need for couples to ensure they have settled property agreements when they split up.

‘‘It all comes down to what you are entitled to do with your own property. In this case the car is treated as property in which he has an interest. What you do with your own property is a matter for you, even if it’s shared ownership.’’