Arthur William Taylor v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 5/2009
[2009] NZSC 45
ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Tipping, McGrath and Wilson JJ
Counsel:Applicant in person

M E Ball for Crown

Judgment:15 May 2009

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1] The only possible point of general importance raised in this application concerns the issue of previous acquittal. At the heart of that question is whether a pre-trial s 347 discharge qualifies as a previous acquittal. This is a general point on which leave might, in some circumstances, be appropriate. In this case we decline to grant leave to argue the point because we consider the previous acquittal argument is, in any event, completely answered by the fact that the kidnapping and the wounding were not sufficiently similar to support a plea of previous acquittal on the facts.
[2] There is therefore no prospect of the appeal succeeding, whatever the correct answer may be to the s 347 point. Furthermore, there is absolutely no basis for contending that leave is necessary on account of any miscarriage of justice. For these reasons the application must be declined.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Arthur William Taylor sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for kidnapping and wounding. The case was heard by Tipping, McGrath and Wilson JJ, with the applicant representing himself and M E Ball appearing for the Crown. The central issue was whether a pre-trial discharge under section 347 of the Crimes Act qualified as a previous acquittal, which could have implications for the admissibility of evidence of prior criminal conduct. The court considered whether such a discharge could be used to argue a previous acquittal in the context of similar offences.

The court found that the issue of whether a section 347 discharge qualifies as a previous acquittal was not decisive in this case, as the kidnapping and wounding offences were not sufficiently similar to warrant a plea of previous acquittal. The court was also satisfied that there was no prospect of the appeal succeeding on this point, and no basis for a miscarriage of justice. The court declined to grant leave to appeal, as the applicant's argument on the point of previous acquittal was not likely to result in a successful appeal.

The court's decision was based on the specific facts of the case, and the determination that the kidnapping and wounding offences were not sufficiently similar to allow for a plea of previous acquittal. The court found that the applicant's argument on the point of previous acquittal was unlikely to result in a successful appeal, and that there was no basis for contending that leave was necessary on account of any miscarriage of justice. The court declined the application for leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established