Jeremy George Edward McLaughlin v The Queen - [2015] NZSC 164

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 97/2015
[2015] NZSC 164

BETWEEN	JEREMY GEORGE EDWARD MCLAUGHLIN Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	William Young, Arnold and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	R M Lithgow QC for Applicant M D Downs for Respondent
Judgment:	3 November 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Background

During September and October 2011, the applicant was in a relationship with Patricia Bayliss. He and Ms Bayliss parted on bad terms by early November. On 10 November, Ms Bayliss’ 13 year-old daughter Jade did not go to school because she was ill. Instead she stayed at home, at the house where she, her two younger siblings and their mother lived. On the same day the applicant, having waited until the two younger children left for school and their mother for work, burgled the house and stole a number of items, including large televisions, one of which was taken from Jade’s room. He then pawned some of the items which he had stolen. He also visited a mall. Jade’s empty wallet was later found near where he had parked his car. He then acquired a little under 10 litres of petrol and a lighter and returned to the house. While there, he stole some other items and then set the house alight using the petrol and the lighter.
When the fire brigade attended the fire, Jade’s body was found in the house. She had been murdered, the cause of death being strangulation with a ligature and the stuffing of socks in her mouth. The applicant’s DNA was found under Jade’s fingernails. Also found there was material which was probably blood, although this could not be confirmed by analysis. In the absence of evidence suggesting that Jade had left the house and given the clothes she was found in, it was open to inference that she had been in the house at the time of the burglary. It was not likely that the applicant could have committed the burglary and removed the items which he stole without attracting Jade’s attention. She, however, did not contact her mother in the aftermath of the burglary. On the evidence as a whole, there would have been very little opportunity in terms of time for anyone other than the applicant to have entered the house on 10 November at any time that could have been relevant to Jade’s murder.
When questioned by the police on the evening of 10 November, the applicant denied having been at the house that day.
At the commencement of his trial the applicant pleaded guilty to burglary and arson but denied murder. During the trial he gave evidence acknowledging that he had burgled the house and had later returned to it and set it alight. He claimed not to have seen Jade on 10 November on the two occasions when he entered the house. The defence thus rested on the proposition that on the same day as he burgled and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jeremy George Edward McLaughlin v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NZSC 164
Decision Date: 3 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jeremy George Edward McLaughlin applied for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for the murder of 13-year-old Jade Bayliss. McLaughlin was found guilty of murdering Jade and setting her family home alight in November 2011. The Supreme Court of New Zealand was asked to consider McLaughlin's appeal on four grounds: the treatment of DNA evidence, the judge's summing up regarding lies, the absence of a direction under section 32 of the Evidence Act in relation to a statement made on 10 November, and the balance of the summing up. McLaughlin argued that the judge should have directed the jury that the DNA evidence did not assist in identifying the murderer, that he should have given a direction under section 32 of the Evidence Act in relation to the statement made on 10 November, and that the summing up was otherwise flawed. The Supreme Court rejected each of these arguments, affirming the Court of Appeal's findings that any errors made were not material and did not warrant allowing the appeal.

The court held that the judge was not required to direct the jury that the DNA evidence did not assist in identifying the murderer, as the DNA evidence was a single strand of evidence and the jury was entitled to evaluate it in the overall context of the compelling Crown case. The court also concluded that there was no misdirection regarding the lies the applicant told the police, as the judge made it clear to the jury that they should not necessarily find the applicant guilty "just because" he had lied. Furthermore, the court held that the judge was not required to give a direction under section 32 of the Evidence Act in relation to the statement made on 10 November, as the impact on credibility was a primary focus of the judge's direction and such impact is not the subject of section 32. Finally, the court found no appearance of error in the Court of Appeal's judgment regarding the balance of the summing up.

The Supreme Court dismissed McLaughlin's application for leave to appeal, upholding the Court of Appeal's decision that any errors made were not material and did not warrant allowing the appeal. The court concluded that a guilty verdict was the only reasonably possible verdict on the evidence as a whole. The final orders of the Supreme Court were that McLaughlin's application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders