The Attorney-General ...................................................................................................................... 29
Mr King ........................................................................................................................................... 34
The Attorney-General in reply ......................................................................................................... 51
Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................................................ 54
The cases ......................................................................................................................................... 54
The Compensation Scheme .............................................................................................................. 74
Application of the law in this case ................................................................................................... 77
Did the police owe a duty of care up to the point Mr King was charged? ...................................... 79
Did the police owe a duty of care after Mr King was charged? .................................................... 102
Result ................................................................................................................................................. 140
KING v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZHC 1696 [21 July 2017]
Introduction
[1] The defendant (the Attorney-General) applies to strike out Mr King’s
statement of claim.
Background
[2] The following is taken from Mr King’s statement of claim.
[3] In early 2008 the police in Napier were investigating the homicide of Mr King’s neighbour, Ms Maihi-Carroll, whose body had been discovered at her home on Monday 21 January 2008. Ms Maihi-Carroll and Mr King both lived in the same rental unit complex in Napier.
[4] Suspicion fell upon Mr King when interviews with his co-workers suggested that he had disclosed details of the killing at a time when that information had not been publically released. Mr King was interviewed by police and maintained his innocence.
[5] On 26 March 2008 Mr King was charged with Ms Maihi-Carroll’s murder.
[6] At the time of his arrest, Mr King was on parole, having been earlier released from prison. As a result of being charged with the murder while on parole he was recalled to prison, where he remained for 16 months serving out the balance of his sentence for the earlier offending.
[7] A depositions hearing was conducted in the District Court at Napier in October 2008, presided over by Justices of the Peace. Mr King was committed for trial on the murder charge.
[8] On 1 April 2009 Mr King filed an application for discharge under s 347 of the
Crimes Act 1961. That application was unsuccessful.
[9] The case proceeded to trial, but there was a mistrial. A second trial was scheduled for 8 February 2010.
[10] On the Sunday before the first day of the second trial, the Crown’s solicitor contacted Mr King’s counsel and advised that the evidence of Mr King’s co-workers was now considered unreliable. The Crown solicitor suggested that Mr King make another application for discharge under s 347 at the commencement of the trial.
[11] Mr King duly made that…
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 King v Attorney-General
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
King v Attorney-General [2017] NZHC 1696
Case
[2017] NZHC 1696
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Zion Hiona King filed a claim against the Attorney-General, who represented the New Zealand Police, alleging negligent investigation. The claim arose out of a criminal investigation and prosecution of Mr King for the murder of Ms Maihi-Carroll. Mr King was acquitted after the Crown decided not to oppose his application for discharge under s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961. The Attorney-General applied to strike out the claim on the basis that no duty of care was owed by the police to Mr King. The court considered whether, on the facts pleaded, the claim was clearly untenable. The court held that the claim for negligence up to the point when Mr King was charged must be struck out. The court held that the claim for negligence after Mr King was charged should go forward to trial. The court held that the claim for negligence in respect of the unreliability of evidence generally need not be struck out at this stage.