Ahu Stanley Taylor v The Queen - [2017] NZSC 104

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 33/2017
[2017] NZSC 104

BETWEEN	AHU STANLEY TAYLOR Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and OʼRegan JJ
Counsel:	M J Taylor-Cyphers for Applicant M J Lillico and H G Max for Respondent
Judgment:	4 July 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Following trial in the High Court before Nicholas Davidson J and a jury, the applicant was found guilty of attempted murder.[1] He was later sentenced to 10 years and eight months imprisonment.[2] His subsequent appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.[3]
[1]See R v Taylor [2016] NZHC 1620.
[2]At [106]; see also at [93]-[94] where Mr Taylor offered to pay recompense of $3,000 at sentencing with a potential $7,000 more over time. Nicholas Davidson J ordered that the $3,000 paid into Court “be applied to the benefit of the family”.
[3]Taylor v R [2017] NZCA 53 (French, Mallon and Duffy JJ) [Taylor (CA)].
The offending occurred in the context of a violent and prolonged assault by the applicant and another man on the victim. In the course of this assault, the applicant stomped on the victim’s head at least 20 times. The co-offender pleaded guilty to a charge of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm and was sentenced to seven years and one month imprisonment.[4] The applicant’s pre-trial offer to plead guilty to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, with the concomitant dropping of the attempted murder charge, was declined by the prosecution.[5]
[4]Rowles v R [2016] NZCA 208.
[5]As we understand it, at the commencement of his trial, the applicant pleaded guilty to the alternative charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm but the Crown did not accept the plea with the result that he still faced the attempted murder charge, upon which he was found guilty.
The applicant is plainly dissatisfied by the differential in the sentences imposed on him and his co-offender, a differential which is largely a consequence of the prosecutor’s acceptance of the co-offender’s plea to the grievous bodily harm charge and non-acceptance of the applicant’s offer to plead to a materially similar charge. Arguments based on this dissatisfaction were addressed in some detail by the Court of Appeal.[6]
[6]Taylor (CA), above n 3, at [19]–[23].
We are of the view that:
(a)It was open to the Crown to proceed against the applicant on the charge of attempted murder and to accept the burden of proving an intent to kill. There was ample evidence to support a conviction on that basis.
(b)It was likewise open to the Crown to take the view that the evidence supported the inference of intent to kill in Mr Taylor’s case but that such an intent might be more difficult to establish in the case of the co-offender.
(c)In any event, even if it were the case that the co-offender should also…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ahu Stanley Taylor v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NZSC 104
Decision Date: 4 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Ahu Stanley Taylor appealed against his conviction and sentence for attempted murder, which arose from a violent assault on a victim, involving stomping on the victim's head at least 20 times. After a trial and sentencing in the High Court, Taylor's appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Taylor applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the Crown should have accepted his offer to plead guilty to a materially similar charge, and that there was a disparity in the sentences imposed on him and his co-offender. The Court of Appeal had addressed these arguments, and the Supreme Court found that it was open to the Crown to proceed against Taylor on the charge of attempted murder, and that the Crown's decision not to accept his plea offer did not raise a question of general or public importance. The Court also dismissed Taylor's proposed grounds of appeal relating to the summing up by the trial judge, finding that there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court included whether it was open to the Crown to proceed against Taylor on the charge of attempted murder, and whether the Crown's decision not to accept his plea offer raised a question of general or public importance. The Court also considered whether the summing up by the trial judge was adequate and whether it raised a question of general or public importance. The Court found that it was open to the Crown to proceed against Taylor on the charge of attempted murder, and that the Crown's decision not to accept his plea offer did not raise a question of general or public importance. The Court also found that the summing up by the trial judge was adequate and did not raise a question of general or public importance.

The Supreme Court dismissed Taylor's application for leave to appeal, finding that the Crown was entitled to proceed against Taylor on the charge of attempted murder, and that the Crown's decision not to accept his plea offer did not raise a question of general or public importance. The Court also found that the summing up by the trial judge was adequate and did not raise a question of general or public importance. The Court concluded that the appeal did not raise a question of general or public importance, and that there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders