Bullock v The Queen - [2013] NZCA 307

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA741/2012
[2013] NZCA 307

BETWEEN	SHANE PATRICK BULLOCK Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA742/2012
AND BETWEEN	ROBERT WILLIAM JOHN BRITTON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	13 June 2013
Court:	O’Regan P, MacKenzie and Miller JJ
Counsel:	B J Hunt for Mr Bullock No appearance for Mr Britton M E Ball for Respondent
Judgment:	19 July 2013 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeals are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

Introduction

Shane Bullock and Robert Britton appeal against their convictions on one count each of attempting by threats to dissuade a witness, Gary Britton, from giving evidence at the trial of Wayne Tweedale.
There are two grounds of appeal.[1] The first is that the indictment was amended twice during the trial and the materials before the jury were apt to confuse them about a particular of the charge, namely the making of threats. The second is that Gary Britton, who was called by the Crown, gave evidence about a meeting with counsel who appeared for the appellant Shane Bullock at trial, resulting in a possible miscarriage of justice through counsel’s unavailability as a witness.
[1]Ms Hunt accepted in argument that a third ground, unreasonable verdicts, rested on the second ground so added nothing to the appeals.
Ms Hunt appeared for Mr Bullock in this Court, but she advised that Robert Britton, who was evidently unable to secure legal aid, adopted her submissions and sought leave not to appear in person. We have proceeded accordingly.

The narrative

Gary Britton and Wayne Tweedale fell out over a land transaction. Conflict between them led to Mr Tweedale being committed to appear at trial in the District Court at Wanganui on 4 October 2010, facing charges of theft and assault. Gary Britton was to give evidence.
Robert Britton is the son of Gary Britton, but it seems there is little love lost between them. Mr Bullock is an associate of Mr Tweedale’s.
On Sunday 3 October 2010 Mr Bullock, Robert Britton and Robert’s brother Shannon Britton arrived at Gary Britton’s house. The Crown alleged that Mr Bullock engaged in heated discussion with Gary Britton, trying by threats to dissuade him from giving evidence. Robert Britton was said to have assisted by standing by and offering support.
This incident led to the appellants and Shannon Britton facing charges under s 117(e) of the Crimes Act 1961, which creates the offence of wilfully attempting to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice “in any other way”. The quoted phrase is explained by the preceding subsections, each of which creates a specific offence. Notably, under s 117(a) it is an offence to attempt to dissuade a person by threats from giving evidence. The Crown had initially relied upon s 117(a), but the charge had been amended after some pre-trial skirmishing about whether the committal statements disclosed a threat.
The indictment upon which the three accused were arraigned for…

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 Bullock v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bullock v The Queen [2013] NZCA 307
Case: [2013] NZCA 307
Decision Date: 19 July 2013 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard appeals from Shane Patrick Bullock and Robert William John Britton, who were convicted of attempting to dissuade a witness from giving evidence at a trial. The case involved a conflict between Gary Britton and Wayne Tweedale over a land transaction, leading to Tweedale facing charges of theft and assault. The appellants were accused of attempting to dissuade Gary Britton from giving evidence against Tweedale. The primary legal issues in the appeals were whether the amendments to the indictment during the trial confused the jury regarding the specifics of the charges and whether the absence of counsel as a witness led to a miscarriage of justice. The court examined the amendments to the indictment and the impact of the jury's request to confirm details of a conversation that counsel was unable to provide. The court concluded that the amendments to the indictment did not confuse the jury and that the absence of counsel as a witness did not lead to a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the evidence might not have led the jury to acquit the appellants and upheld the trial judge's decision to reject the jury's request for further clarification. The appeals were dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeals of Shane Patrick Bullock and Robert William John Britton were dismissed.

Orders