Ellis v The Queen

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESSES UNDER 17 YEARS OF AGE PROHIBITED BY S 139A OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

NOTE: ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE COMPLAINANT, HER FAMILY MEMBERS AND HER BOYFRIEND REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 49/2019
[2021] NZSC 63

BETWEEN	PETER HUGH MCGREGOR ELLIS Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	11 November 2020 and 25 March 2021
Court:	Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Williams and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	R A Harrison, S J Gray, B L Irvine and K D W Snelgar for Appellant J R Billington QC and A D H Colley for Respondent
Judgment:	15 June 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The respondent’s application to adduce the evidence of the deponent in relation to the alleged incident in 1982/1983 and the affidavits of other proposed witnesses in relation to that incident at the hearing of the appellant’s appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The Court is issuing this result judgment so the parties have a clearer picture about the scope of the issues to be addressed at the hearing of the appeal.
Reasons will be delivered in the next two to three weeks.

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the appellant, Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis, sought to appeal his conviction. The nature of the dispute involved the admissibility of certain evidence in relation to an alleged incident from 1982/1983 during the appeal hearing. The respondent, The Queen, opposed the appellant's application to adduce specific evidence and affidavits from witnesses concerning that incident. The case was heard by Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Williams, and Arnold JJ, with legal counsel representing both parties.

The legal issues before the court were centered on the admissibility and relevance of evidence regarding the 1982/1983 incident during the appeal hearing. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the evidence proposed by the appellant should be permitted and whether the affidavits from other witnesses related to the incident in question would be admissible. The respondent argued against the inclusion of this evidence, contending it was not relevant to the grounds of appeal presented by the appellant.

The court dismissed the appellant's application to introduce the contested evidence and affidavits. The reasoning behind this decision was communicated in a subsequent detailed judgment, which was expected to be delivered in the following weeks. The court aimed to clarify the scope of issues to be addressed at the appeal hearing, ensuring that only relevant and admissible evidence would be considered. The outcome of the dismissal meant that the proposed evidence from 1982/1983 would not be part of the appeal proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established