Jury v The King

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 114/2024
[2025] NZSC 14

BETWEEN	RAYMOND IVEAGH JURY Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	C W J Stevenson KC and S J Parry for Applicant Z R Johnston and Z R Hamill for Respondent
Judgment:	17 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
BLeave to appeal is granted in part (Jury v R [2024] NZCA 320).
CThe approved questions are:
(a)whether the High Court erred by admitting the hearsay statements of Rex Maney in evidence, and if so, whether the error occasioned a miscarriage of justice; and
(b)whether the trial Judge’s failure to give a reliability direction under s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 with respect to those statements occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

DThe application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

An extension of time is necessary and is granted.[1]
[1]Supreme Court Rules 2004, r 11(1)(b).
The application for leave to appeal also contends to argue that a miscarriage of justice resulted because trial counsel erred by advising Mr Jury not to call Jason Maney as a witness.
We give brief reasons for declining leave with respect to this allegation of counsel error. Trial counsel envisaged that Jason Maney would be called to give evidence that Rex Maney, who had since died, had admitted to Jason that he, not Mr Jury, had killed the victim, Trevor Rikihana. However, trial counsel changed his advice to Mr Jury after interviewing Jason Maney when the latter was arrested and brought to court after failing to respond to a witness summons. The Court of Appeal heard evidence from trial counsel and Mr Jury.[2] It rejected Mr Jury’s evidence that he had firmly instructed counsel to call Jason Maney.[3] Rather, the Court found that Mr Jury accepted counsel’s advice not to call Jason Maney.[4] The Court found that trial counsel advised Mr Jury against doing so, having formed the view that Jason Maney was hostile to the defence. While confirming privately that Rex Maney had admitted killing Mr Rikihana, Jason Maney stated that he intended to resile from that statement in evidence and would say he had been pressured into making it.[5] Trial counsel formed the opinion that his evidence would seriously jeopardise the defence case.[6]
[2]Jury v R [2024] NZCA 320 (Cooke, Collins and Osborne JJ) at [81].
[3]At [78] and [82]–[85].
[4]At [85].
[5]At [77] and [82]–[83].
[6]At [77].
We are not persuaded that this ground of appeal raises a question of general or public importance, or that it raises the appearance of a miscarriage of justice.[7]
[7]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(a)–(b).

Solicitors:
Te Tari Ture o te Karauna | Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an application for an extension of time to appeal a decision in the case of Jury v The King. The applicant, Raymond Iveagh Jury, sought leave to appeal on the basis that the High Court had erred in admitting hearsay statements by Rex Maney and that the trial judge failed to give a reliability direction under s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006. The applicant also sought to argue that a miscarriage of justice occurred because trial counsel advised him not to call Jason Maney as a witness. The Court of Appeal had already rejected this latter claim, finding that the applicant had accepted counsel's advice against calling Jason Maney. The Supreme Court granted an extension of time for the application to appeal and granted leave to appeal in part, focusing on the hearsay and reliability direction issues. The Court declined to grant leave on the counsel error issue, finding it did not raise a question of general or public importance or the appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

The central legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the High Court erred in admitting hearsay statements by Rex Maney and whether the trial judge’s failure to give a reliability direction under s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006, concerning those statements, led to a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal had found that trial counsel's decision not to call Jason Maney as a witness did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court considered these issues in the context of the principles governing the admission of hearsay evidence and the obligations of a trial judge to direct on the reliability of such evidence.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the application for leave to appeal concerning the hearsay statements and the reliability direction raised questions of law that were of general or public importance. The Court found that the High Court's admission of Rex Maney’s hearsay statements and the trial judge's failure to provide a reliability direction could potentially lead to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal on these grounds, noting the significance of these issues in the context of the proper administration of justice and the protection of a defendant's rights. The Court declined to consider the issue of counsel error further, finding it did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal.

In summary, the Supreme Court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal in part for Raymond Iveagh Jury, focusing on the High Court's handling of hearsay evidence and the trial judge's obligation to provide a reliability direction. The Court declined to grant leave on the issue of counsel error, finding it did not raise a question of general or public importance or the appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established