David Cullen Bain v The Queen recall

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 13/2009
[2009] NZSC 49
DAVID CULLEN BAIN
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson and Gault JJ
Counsel:H A Cull QC and P A Morten for Appellant

K Raftery and C L Mander for Crown

Judgment:6 March 2009
Reasons:18 March 2009

Recall of Judgment: 25 May 2009

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (RECALL)

1Order D of the Court’s judgment of 6 March 2009, as appearing in its reasons of 18 March 2009, is revoked and replaced by the following order:

DUntil further order of the Court, the reasons for judgment are not to be distributed except to the appellant and his counsel and counsel for the respondent.

2The restriction on publication of the Court’s judgment and reasons in the news media or on internet or other publicly accessible database will also apply until further order of the Court.

Of its own motion the Court recalls its judgment of 6 March 2009 in order to amend the order prohibiting distribution of the reasons for judgment and the restriction on publication. The Court is concerned that there may not be sufficient clarity in the expression “until completion of retrial” and is therefore replacing that expression with “until further order of the Court”.
Solicitors:
Duncan Cotterill, Auckland for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Cullen Bain, the appellant, sought a review from the Supreme Court of New Zealand against his conviction for the murder of six members of his family. The Supreme Court had previously upheld his conviction, but Bain sought a recall of the judgment to amend the court's order regarding the distribution and publication of the judgment's reasons. The recall was sought on the grounds that the original order, which restricted distribution until the completion of a retrial, might be unclear and could potentially be misinterpreted.

The legal issues in this case centred on the interpretation of the Supreme Court's previous order. Specifically, the court needed to clarify whether the phrase "until completion of retrial" sufficiently conveyed the intended duration of the restrictions on the distribution and publication of the judgment's reasons. The court also had to consider the implications of its own motion to recall and amend the judgment, which involved revisiting its earlier decision and potentially impacting the broader legal principles regarding the transparency and accessibility of court judgments.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the potential ambiguity in the phrase "until completion of retrial" and opted to replace it with "until further order of the Court" to ensure clarity. By doing so, the Court aimed to prevent any misinterpretation that might affect the implementation of the restrictions. The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to recall and amend its earlier judgment, ensuring that the reasons for the judgment and the restrictions on publication remained clear and unambiguous.

The Court's revised order effectively maintained the restrictions on distribution and publication of the judgment's reasons until it provided further instructions. This decision underscored the Court's commitment to ensuring that its orders were precise and easily understood, thereby preventing any potential confusion or misapplication.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established