BETWEEN RAYMOND IVEAGH JURY Appellant AND THE KING Respondent

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)

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.
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.
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].
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].
The application for recall is declined.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand, comprising Cooke, Collins, and Osborne JJ, considered an appeal by Raymond Iveagh Jury against his conviction for the murder of Mr Rikihana. The appellant, represented by counsel C W J Stevenson and S J Parry, sought to have the court recall its earlier judgment dismissing his appeal. The respondent, represented by Z R Johnston, opposed the recall application. The appellant argued that the court had inadequately addressed one ground of appeal, which related to alleged inconsistencies between a letter written by Mr Maney and his subsequent statement to the police, and CCTV footage of the appellant's car on the night of the murder. The court found that the appellant's arguments for recall were based on a misinterpretation of its earlier judgment and did not meet the stringent criteria for recall as established in Uhrle v R and Jolley v R. Consequently, the application for recall was declined.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the earlier judgment adequately addressed the appellant's claim that the evidence of Mr Maney's letter and police statement was inconsistent with CCTV footage, thereby undermining the Crown's case. The court examined whether the inconsistencies were sufficient to warrant a different outcome and whether the appellant's submissions accurately reflected the earlier judgment. The court concluded that the earlier judgment sufficiently addressed the inconsistencies, finding that there were both consistencies and inconsistencies between Mr Maney’s accounts and the CCTV footage, and that these elements collectively supported the Crown's case.

In declining the recall application, the court noted that the appellant's arguments misinterpreted the court's earlier judgment and failed to meet the high threshold for recall as outlined in previous Supreme Court decisions. The court emphasized that the power to recall judgments is reserved for exceptional circumstances to prevent injustice. As the appellant's application did not meet these criteria, the court maintained its earlier decision to dismiss the appeal. The court's decision underscores the importance of accurately interpreting judicial opinions and adhering to established legal standards when seeking to recall a judgment.

The court's decision resulted in the dismissal of the appellant's application for recall, affirming the earlier judgment that rejected his appeal against his conviction for the murder of Mr Rikihana.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established