Hall v The the Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 21/2022
[2022] NZSC 51

BETWEEN	ALAN RUSSELL HALL Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	N P Chisnall for Applicant M F Laracy and E J Hoskin for Respondent
Judgment:	3 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (R v Hall [1987] 1 NZLR 616 (CA)).
CThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The Crown has indicated that it accepts that there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice on the basis that evidence relevant to the jury’s assessment of the identity of the offender was materially altered and that the relevant documentation was not disclosed to the applicant. The Crown therefore accepts that it is necessary in the interests of justice that this Court hear and determine Mr Hall’s appeal despite the delay.
The Crown has also advised that it does not intend to oppose the appeal and accepts that Mr Hall’s convictions should be quashed. It will not seek an order for retrial.
We have granted leave on general terms. Mr Hall is to advise as soon as possible whether, in light of the concession from the Crown, he would still seek to argue the other grounds of appeal he has raised.
The appeal is to be set down for hearing as soon as possible. The Registrar is to set a timetable for submissions.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alan Russell Hall applied to the Supreme Court of New Zealand for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against his convictions. The Crown, represented by the Crown Law Office, accepted that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred and did not intend to oppose the appeal. The court was required to decide whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and whether leave to appeal should be granted. The Crown accepted that relevant evidence had been materially altered and that the relevant documentation was not disclosed to the applicant. The court granted the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal and also granted leave to appeal on general terms. The court set a timetable for submissions and directed Mr Hall to advise whether he would still seek to argue the other grounds of appeal he had raised. The appeal was to be set down for hearing as soon as possible.

The court considered the Crown’s concession of a substantial miscarriage of justice and the importance of correcting such an error in the interests of justice. The court also noted that the Crown did not intend to oppose the appeal and would not seek an order for retrial. The court was satisfied that it was necessary to grant leave to appeal despite the delay, given the circumstances of the case. The court directed Mr Hall to advise whether he would still seek to argue the other grounds of appeal he had raised, and set a timetable for submissions. The court’s decision was based on the acceptance by the Crown of a substantial miscarriage of justice and the importance of correcting such an error in the interests of justice.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established