He was found guilty following a judge-alone trial last year of driving while suspended, wounding the female officer with intent to injure, and aggravated assault and resisting police in respect of the male officer.
The district court trial before Judge Stephen Bonnar was told that the two constables were policing speed limits in New Windsor about 9pm on April 24, 2020.
Their radar clocked Stitt driving at 71km/h in a 50km/h zone, and they went after him when he turned around and drove off in the opposite direction.
They followed Stitt to a nearby block of shops and used their marked police car to block his vehicle in a parking bay.
“What happened between Mr Stitt and the constables at that location is the issue in this case,” Judge Bonnar said.
“What is clear is that both constables suffered relatively significant injuries.”
The prosecution case at trial said that Stitt was initially compliant when he got out of his vehicle but then took out his cellphone to video his interactions with the officers.
The male officer told him he did not have the right to do that and reached out to grab Stitt’s wrist, and Stitt moved his arm holding the phone upwards.
The constable then tried to take him into custody, but Stitt resisted his attempts to restrain him and pushed him away from his car.
The male officer fell to the ground and his glasses were broken. The constable was on his back and Stitt was positioned over him, with his right hand closed into a fist.
The female officer intervened and pulled Stitt off her colleague, at which he lifted her off her feet and threw her backwards.
She landed on her back and her head hit the footpath or kerb. She suffered a prolapsed spinal disc and a degree of permanent damage in the nerve to her left knee.
Stitt walked away from the scene but returned, and the male constable arrested him and put him in handcuffs as other patrol vehicles arrived.
Stitt said in his defence that the male constable had “aggressively” snatched at his keys, dived towards him and tried to tackle him to the ground. When on the ground, the constable had tried to pull him down on to him.
Stitt said he did not have any interaction with the female officer at all.
Judge Bonnar said that Stitt’s account of his interaction with the male constable was not credible, and his statements about the female officer were inconsistent with her evidence and the injuries she suffered.
Photographs showed blood on her hair and uniform.
Judge Bonnar found Stitt guilty on all four counts, but Stitt appealed his convictions to the High Court.
Representing himself in the High Court before Justice Christine Gordon, Stitt said that photographs of the male officer’s ankle injury looked more like gout.
In relation to the female officer’s injuries, he said “a red-coloured liquid, namely ‘blood’, pictured on someone’s head and clothes” did not show proof of an injury.
But Justice Gorman said that in relation to the charges involving the male constable – aggravated assault and resisting arrest – there was no requirement for the prosecution to prove that an injury was caused.
She said there was “more than sufficient evidence” for the trial judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the charge of wounding the female officer with intent to injure was proven.
“Mr Stitt has not demonstrated any error by the judge,” she said.
Justice Gordon said Judge Bonnar had found both constables to be “reliable and credible” witnesses.
“On the contrary, he did not find Mr Stitt to be a reliable and credible witness when it came to his narrative on the central and critical factual events,” Justice Gordon said.
“None of the grounds relied on by Mr Stitt in support of his appeal against his convictions are made out.”
She dismissed the appeal.
Ric Stevens spent many years working for the former New Zealand Press Association news agency, including as a political reporter at Parliament, before holding senior positions at various daily newspapers. He joined NZME’s Open Justice team in 2022 and is based in Hawke’s Bay. His writing in the crime and justice sphere is informed by four years of front-line experience as a probation officer.
