BETWEEN RAYMOND IVEAGH JURY Appellant AND THE KING Respondent

[2024] NZCA 453

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA342/2021
 [2024] NZCA 453

BETWEEN	RAYMOND IVEAGH JURY Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Cooke, Collins and Osborne JJ
Counsel:	C W J Stevenson and S J Parry for Appellant Z R Johnston for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	18 September 2024 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Collins J)

1. Mr Jury has applied to have us recall our judgment delivered on 16 July 2024 in which we dismissed his appeal against his conviction for the murder of Mr Rikihana.[1]  Through his counsel, Mr Stevenson KC, Mr Jury submits that we failed to give sufficient reasons for rejecting one of his grounds of appeal. 

   [1]Jury v R [2024] NZCA 320.

2. The ground of appeal in issue alleged that a letter written by Mr Maney and his second statement to the police implicating Mr Jury in the murder of Mr Rikihana could not be reconciled with CCTV footage showing the movements of Mr Jury’s car the night Mr Rikihana was murdered. 

3. In our judgment, we said:      

   (a)While there were inconsistencies between Mr Maney’s letter and his statement to the police,[2] there were also a number of consistencies between those documents.  There were also consistencies between Mr Maney’s letter and second statement to the police and other evidence.[3]

   (b)The letter written by Mr Maney and his second statement to the police together with the CCTV footage supported the Crown case that Mr Jury had travelled to Mr Maney’s home with Mr Rikihana in the back of his car after Mr Rikihana had been severely beaten.[4]

   (c)Contrary to Mr Stevenson’s submissions, Mr Maney’s letter and second statement to the police were not totally inconsistent with the CCTV footage.[5] 

   [2]At [57]

   [3]At [58].

   [4]At [59]–[60].

   [5]At [59].

4. The argument put forward to recall our judgment is:

   (a)based upon an erroneous reading of our judgment; and

   (b)does not pass the test required for recall set out by the Supreme Court in Uhrle v R[6] and Jolley v R.[7]  In those judgments, the Court emphasised that the test for recall recognises that the power to recall is an exceptional step that ensures the court is able to respond to circumstances “in order to avoid injustice”.[8]

   [6]Uhrle v R [2020] NZSC 62, [2021] NZLR 286.

   [7]Jolley v R [2022] NZSC 150, [2022] 1 NZLR 595.

   [8]Uhrle v R, above n 6, at [29], referred to in Jolley v R, above n 7, at [14].

5. The application for recall is declined.

Solicitors:
Te Tari Ture o te Karauna | Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent