Legal Research
Cases
Beckham v R

Beckham v R

Case [2015] NZSC 98 7 July 2015

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Breach of Trust

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 18/2013
[2015] NZSC 98

BETWEEN	MAX JOHN BECKHAM Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	3–4 March 2015
Court:	Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	S J Mount, A F Pilditch and A H H Choi for Appellant D J Boldt, D G Johnstone and M J McKillop for Respondent
Judgment:	7 July 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.

BThe appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

(Given by O’Regan J)

Table of Contents
Para No
Appeal and application for leave	[1]
Factual background	[9]
Allegations of breach of privilege dealt with by High Court and Court of Appeal	[45]
New allegations of breach of privilege	[48]
(a) Alleged breaches of solicitor/client privilege	[52]
(b) Alleged breaches of litigation privilege	[63]
Conclusion – new allegations of breaches of privilege	[100]
Evaluation of the facts: five propositions	[101]
Proposition 1	[102]
Proposition 2	[107]
Proposition 3	[111]
Proposition 4	[116]
Proposition 5	[119]
Conclusion on propositions relating to the facts	[123]
Alleged breaches of the Bill of Rights Act: two propositions	[124]
Proposition 6	[125]
Proposition 7	[131]
Remedies: two propositions	[148]
Proposition 8	[149]
Proposition 9	[151]
Result	[179]

Appeal and application for leave

The appellant, Mr Beckham, appeals against a decision of the Court of Appeal in which his appeal against conviction for serious drug offending and money laundering was dismissed.[1] A Crown appeal against sentence was allowed. His sentence was increased to a term of imprisonment of 18 years with a minimum period of imprisonment of nine years.
[1]Beckham v R [2012] NZCA 603, [2013] 1 NZLR 613 (Stevens, Venning and Dobson JJ) [Beckham (CA)].
Mr Beckham sought leave to appeal to this Court on the basis that the Court of Appeal had wrongly stated and wrongly applied the test for sentence reduction as a remedy for police misconduct amounting to a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Leave to appeal was granted.[2] The approved ground was:
Should the appellant have received a reduction in his sentence for the breach of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?
[2]Beckham v R [2013] NZSC 70 [Beckham (SC Leave)].
The breach of the Bill of Rights Act on which the appeal was founded involved actions taken by the police that meant the police obtained access to recordings of calls made by Mr Beckham to his trial lawyer, Mr Murray Gibson, and in one instance, a call made by Mr Beckham to his son, Gary Beckham, who then handed the phone to a property lawyer acting for Mr Beckham, Mr Rick Palmer. The focus of the appeal was therefore on breaches of legal advice privilege under s 54 Evidence Act 2006 (“solicitor/client privilege”).[3] We will explain the nature of the allegations of breach of solicitor/client privilege later.

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.

Continue reading Beckham v R

Details

AGLC: Beckham v R [2015] NZSC 98
Case: [2015] NZSC 98
Decision Date: 7 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Max John Beckham appeals against a decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal against conviction for serious drug offences and money laundering. He also seeks leave to appeal against conviction. The appeal against sentence was allowed and his sentence was increased to a term of imprisonment of 18 years with a minimum period of imprisonment of nine years. Mr Beckham’s counsel sought leave to appeal to this Court on the basis that the Court of Appeal had wrongly stated and wrongly applied the test for sentence reduction as a remedy for police misconduct amounting to a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Leave to appeal was granted. The breach of the Bill of Rights Act on which the appeal was founded involved actions taken by the police that meant the police obtained access to recordings of calls made by Mr Beckham to his trial lawyer, Mr Murray Gibson, and in one instance, a call made by Mr Beckham to his son, Gary Beckham, who then handed the phone to a property lawyer acting for Mr Beckham, Mr Rick Palmer. The focus of the appeal was therefore on breaches of legal advice privilege under s 54 Evidence Act 2006 (“solicitor/client privilege”). The Court of Appeal had already considered and rejected claims that the police breaches amounted to a breach of the right to a fair trial under s 25 Bill of Rights Act and that the trial judge should have stayed the proceedings. Mr Beckham seeks to rely on new allegations of breaches of privilege to argue that he is entitled to a sentence reduction. The Court found that there was no sufficient evidential basis to take into account the new allegations of breach of privilege in considering the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant a sentence reduction or the application for leave to appeal against conviction. The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders