H (SC 97/2018) v The Queen

NOTE: ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPLICANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 97/2018
[2019] NZSC 4

BETWEEN	H (SC 97/2018) Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	William Young, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	A J Bailey for Applicant R K Thomson for Respondent
Judgment:	21 February 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal against the conviction for rape is granted (H (CA376/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 376).
BThe approved question is whether, in dealing with delay, the Court of Appeal correctly dealt with the age of the appellant (including the application of s 322 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989).

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

We direct the Registrar to set the appeal down for hearing on 4 April 2019 and to set a timetable for the filing of submissions so that the respondent’s submissions are received no later than 29 March 2019.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

H (SC 97/2018) applied for leave to appeal against his conviction for rape, which was granted by the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The Court of Appeal had upheld the conviction, but the applicant sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's handling of the delay issue, particularly in relation to the consideration of the applicant's age under section 322 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal correctly addressed the issue of delay and the applicant's age when considering the application for leave to appeal. The Court was required to determine if there was any error in the Court of Appeal's reasoning that would warrant the Supreme Court allowing the appeal.

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the Court of Appeal's judgment, found that there was an error in the way the Court of Appeal dealt with the delay issue and the applicant's age. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal did not adequately consider the specific circumstances of the applicant's age and how it related to the delay in reporting the crime. The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal's approach was incorrect and that the applicant's appeal should be heard on the merits. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the Registrar to set the appeal down for hearing on 4 April 2019, with the respondent's submissions due no later than 29 March 2019.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established