James Dillon Stevens v The King - [2022] NZSC 120

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANT UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 73/2022
[2022] NZSC 120

BETWEEN	JAMES DILLON STEVENS Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	N M Dutch for Applicant J E L Carruthers for Respondent
Judgment:	18 October 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant applies for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal against conviction and sentence.[1]
[1]Stevens v R [2022] NZCA 275 (Kós P, Peters and Palmer JJ) [CA judgment].
The applicant was convicted after a High Court jury trial of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and attempted unlawful sexual connection with a boy under the age of 12 years. The applicant was 27 years old at the time of the offending; the complainant was 11.
He was initially charged with two counts of sexual violation, both of them allegations that he forced the complainant to perform oral sex on him. However, during the trial the complainant accepted that oral sex had not taken place in the second incident — the applicant and complainant had been interrupted by a neighbour. The trial Judge agreed to amend the charge to a charge of attempted sexual connection with a child under 12.[2]
[2]R v Stevens HC Tauranga CRI-2020-019-7418, 1 December 2020 (Ruling No 1).
The defence case was that the incident founding the first charge did not occur: the complainant had made it up. The defence case in relation to the second charge was that the complainant had asked to perform oral sex on the applicant, the applicant had refused, so the complainant had forced himself upon him. The applicant gave evidence to that effect at the trial.
The applicant wishes to raise three grounds of appeal if leave to appeal is granted: two relating to conviction and one relating to sentence. He argues in each case that the criteria for the giving of leave to appeal are met because a matter of public importance arises and/or a miscarriage of justice will arise if leave is not given.[3]
[3]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(a) and (b).
The first proposed ground of appeal is that the evidence on the first charge was insufficient to sustain the verdict. This was also argued in the Court of Appeal and emphatically rejected.[4] This proposed ground is entirely factual and does not raise any matter of public importance.[5] Nor do we see any risk of a miscarriage of justice in the way this matter was addressed by the Court of Appeal.
[4]CA judgment, above n 1, at…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading James Dillon Stevens v The King

Details

AGLC: James Dillon Stevens v The King [2022] NZSC 120
Case: [2022] NZSC 120
Decision Date: 18 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of James Dillon Stevens v The King involved an appeal by Stevens against his conviction and sentence for sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and attempted unlawful sexual connection with a boy under the age of 12 years. Stevens was 27 years old at the time of the offence; the complainant was 11. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed Stevens' appeal against conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether to grant leave to appeal to Stevens. The key legal issues before the court were whether the evidence on the first charge was sufficient to sustain the verdict, whether the judge erred in law by granting the Crown’s application to amend the second charge, and whether the sentence of preventive detention with a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years was manifestly excessive.

The Supreme Court found that the evidence on the first charge was sufficient to sustain the verdict and that the court was correct in allowing the amendment of the second charge. The court determined that there was no prejudice to the applicant as a result of the amendment and that the criteria for the grant of leave to appeal were not met in relation to these points. Regarding the sentence, the Supreme Court held that there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice in the way in which the Court of Appeal addressed this issue and that the sentence of preventive detention was not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders