Legal Research
Cases
Davies (aka Waipouri) v The Queen

Davies (aka Waipouri) v The Queen

Case [2019] NZCA 87 3 April 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA266/2017
[2019] NZCA 87

BETWEEN	MICHAEL JOSEPH DAVIES (aka MICHAEL JOSEPH WAIPOURI) Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	2 April 2019
Court:	Williams, Collins and Toogood JJ
Counsel:	R M Mansfield for Appellant K S Grau for Respondent
Judgment:	3 April 2019 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time is granted.
BThe appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CThe appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

[Reasons to follow.]

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

Details

AGLC: Davies (aka Waipouri) v The Queen [2019] NZCA 87
Case: [2019] NZCA 87
Decision Date: 3 April 2019 at 10.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Davies (aka Waipouri) v The Queen involved Michael Joseph Davies, also known as Michael Joseph Waipouri, who was appealing against his conviction and sentence. The legal dispute reached the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, where the panel of judges Williams, Collins, and Toogood presided over the hearing. The appellant was represented by R M Mansfield, while the respondent, The Queen, was represented by K S Grau. The hearing took place on April 2, 2019, and the judgment was delivered on April 3, 2019, at 10.00 am.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appeal against the conviction and the sentence were valid. The appellant contested the conviction on grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdict, and he also argued that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate to the crime committed. The court had to determine whether there were any errors in the trial that warranted a new trial or a reduction in the sentence.

The court thoroughly reviewed the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. The judges found that the evidence presented during the trial was sufficient to support the conviction, and no errors were made that would warrant a new trial. The court also considered the appellant's arguments regarding the sentence and found that the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed. Consequently, the appeal against both the conviction and the sentence was dismissed, and the application for an extension of time was granted. The legal representatives for the appellant and the respondent were from the Crown Law Office in Wellington.

Orders