Cyrus Christian (Aka William John Tassell) v The Queen

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC124/2016
[2016] NZSC 170

BETWEEN	CYRUS CHRISTIAN (AKA WILLIAM JOHN TASSELL) Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, OʼRegan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	N Levy for Applicant A Markham for Respondent
Judgment:	21 December 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Christian (aka Tassell) v R [2016] NZCA 450).
BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Christian was found guilty of three counts of sexual violation by rape. His appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 22 September 2016.[1]
[1]Christian (aka Tassell) v R [2016] NZCA 450 (Stevens, Asher and Joseph Williams JJ).
He sought leave to appeal to this Court on two issues:
(a)Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that consent must be actively expressed; and
(b)Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its determination that the jury must have accepted the complainant’s evidence about lack of consent.
The Crown accepted that the application for leave ought to be granted on the first issue but submitted that it should not be granted in relation to the second.
We have granted leave in the terms we have because we do not consider the first proposed question can be properly examined outside of its factual context. The Crown can, however, renew its arguments about the second proposed issue at the hearing of the appeal.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cyrus Christian, also known as William John Tassell, against The Queen is a criminal case heard in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Mr. Christian was found guilty of three counts of sexual violation by rape and appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 22 September 2016, prompting Mr. Christian to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. He raised two issues for consideration: firstly, whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that consent must be actively expressed, and secondly, whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its determination that the jury must have accepted the complainant's evidence about lack of consent.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were focused on the interpretation and application of the law regarding consent in sexual offences and the evaluation of the jury's acceptance of the complainant's evidence. The Crown accepted that leave to appeal should be granted on the first issue, but opposed it on the second issue. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on the first issue but deferred consideration of the second issue until the hearing of the appeal itself. This decision allows the Crown to renew its arguments on the second issue during the substantive appeal hearing.

In granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court explained that the first proposed question could not be properly examined outside of its factual context. This implies that a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the specific circumstances of the case is required to address the issue of consent effectively. Consequently, the second proposed issue, which pertains to the jury's acceptance of the complainant's evidence, will be revisited during the substantive hearing of the appeal. This approach ensures that the arguments are thoroughly examined within the appropriate legal and factual framework.

No final orders were made in this judgment. The Supreme Court's decision primarily concerns the granting of leave to appeal on the specified issue, with the substantive appeal and the second issue reserved for the full hearing of the appeal. The Crown retains the right to present its arguments regarding the second issue at the appeal hearing.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established