[1] The defendants have applied to review a decision of Associate Judge Osborne.1 The Associate Judge refused to strike out two of the three plaintiffs’ causes of action against the defendants. The Associate Judge’s reasons, to the extent necessary, will be discussed later in this judgment.

Background

[2] The first defendant (Ms Currie) is a partner in the Christchurch firm of Raymond Donnelly & Co, the second defendant. Mr B Stanaway, who is a partner in the same firm, holds the warrant to act as the Crown Solicitor at Christchurch.

[3] Ms Currie was the prosecutor for an August 2007 trial in the Christchurch District Court. The first plaintiff Mr Clayton and his wife, Ms Westbury (the second plaintiff) were accused.2 They were not the only accused. A co-accused was Mr Machirus. The Crown case was that the accused were part of a large scale commercial burglary and receiving ring. Mr Clayton faced a number of charges of receiving, fraud, and using a document with intent to defraud. Ms Westbury faced
receiving charges.

[4] The jury convicted Mr Clayton on 34 counts of receiving. He was subsequently sentenced to five years imprisonment. Ms Westbury was convicted on nine counts of receiving and sentenced to 200 hours community work.

What went wrong?

[5] A crucial Crown witness at the August 2007 trial was Mr L. He was originally a co-accused who stole property from Christchurch residences under construction and, on his evidence, on-sold the property to Mr Clayton, his wife, and Mr Machirus. L had pleaded guilty and received some credit for his guilty pleas and
assistance which he gave to the police. He gave evidence at the aborted October

1 Clayton v Currie [2012] NZHC 1475.
2 There was an earlier trial in October 2006 which was aborted.

2006 trial and was apparently cross-examined on his assistance to the police and his motivation to lie.

[6] Between the two trials L re-offended. He was scheduled to be sentenced in the Wellington District Court in late August 2007.

[7] On 31 May 2007 Judge Radford gave L a sentencing indication. The manner in which Ms Currie…

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 Clayton v Currie

Details

AGLC: Clayton v Currie [2012] NZHC 2777
Case: [2012] NZHC 2777
Decision Date: 23 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clayton v Currie is a case involving a review of a decision by an Associate Judge who refused to strike out two of the three causes of action against the defendants. The plaintiffs, Mr Clayton and Ms Westbury, sought compensation for loss and damage caused by the defendants, Ms Currie and Mr Donnelly, who were partners in a Christchurch law firm and the Crown Solicitor at Christchurch, respectively. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' actions caused them to be convicted on charges of receiving stolen property and other offenses, which were later quashed on appeal. The plaintiffs' claims were based on alleged breaches of their rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the torts of deceit and misfeasance in public office. The defendants applied to have all three causes of action struck out.

The Associate Judge dismissed the strike-out application for the first and third causes of action, but struck out the second cause of action (deceit). The plaintiffs appealed the Associate Judge's decision to strike out the misfeasance in public office cause of action. The Court of Appeal reviewed the decision and ultimately upheld the Associate Judge's decision in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 cause of action, but reversed the decision relating to the misfeasance in public office cause of action. The Court of Appeal held that the tort of misfeasance in public office should not be available in these circumstances, as it would not be appropriate to deploy the tort against Crown solicitors and prosecutors in the context of a criminal trial.

The Court of Appeal also granted leave to appeal on questions of law, and the costs were left to lie where they fell. The case highlights the importance of disclosure by the Crown in criminal trials and the potential consequences of inaccurate or incomplete disclosure. It also underscores the role of the judiciary in ensuring the integrity and fairness of the criminal justice system.

Orders