Dickey v The King

[2023] NZCA 9

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA393/2018
 [2023] NZCA 9

BETWEEN	GEORGIA ROSE DICKEY Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

CA27/2019
BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER JAMES BROWN Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

CA645/2020
BETWEEN	KATRINA ROMA EPIHA Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Miller, Collins and Simon France JJ
Counsel:	D J More and F C D More for Appellant in CA393/2018 F E Guy Kidd KC, L C Preston KC and K M Barker for Appellant in CA27/2019 H G de Groot and T J Conder for Appellant in CA645/2020 C A Brook, R K Thomson and T C Didsbury for Respondent in CA393/2018, CA27/2019 and CA645/2020
Judgment: (On the papers)	10 February 2023 at 12 noon

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application to recall this Court’s judgment [2023] NZCA 2 is granted.

BThe judgment is recalled and reissued as described at [6].

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Collins J)

1. On 27 January 2023, this Court issued a judgment allowing the appeals against sentence brought by all three appellants.[1]  Thereafter counsel for Mr Brown and Ms Epiha applied for a recall of the judgment and for parts of the judgment relating to their clients’ personal circumstances to be either deleted or made subject to a suppression order.

   [1]Dickey v R [2023] NZCA 2.

2. We have granted the request made by Mr Brown by either deleting or amending in the reissued judgment the matters that caused him concern.  Those changes are at [30] and [53] of the reissued judgment.

3. We have granted part of Ms Epiha’s application.  Those changes are at [65] and [75] of the reissued judgment.  The parts of Ms Epiha’s application that we have not granted are, in the Court’s assessment, necessary in order for a reader of the judgment to properly understand the Court’s reasons.

4. Because the Court has amended its judgment to accommodate all of the issues raised by Mr Brown and a number of the issues raised by Ms Epiha, there is no need for suppression orders.

5. The application for recall of the Court’s judgment is granted.

6. The judgment is recalled and reissued with amendments at [30], [53], [65] and [75].

Solicitors:
Scholefield Law, Invercargill for Appellant in CA393/2018
Holland Beckett Law, Tauranga for Appellant in CA645/2020
Crown Law Office | Te Tari Ture o te Karauna, Wellington for Respondent in CA393/2018, CA27/2019 and CA645/2020