Lemanu v The Queen

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA745/2011
[2011] NZCA 613

BETWEEN VILA LEMANU
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Court: Randerson, Harrison and Stevens JJ

Counsel: S Tait for Appellant
M Lillico for Respondent

Judgment: 2 December 2011 at 10.30 a.m

(On the papers)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application to extend time for filing the appeal against conviction is granted.
BThe appellant’s conviction as an accessory after the fact to murder is quashed.
CA retrial is ordered.
DAny application for bail is to be dealt with in the High Court.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

The appellant was convicted as an accessory after the fact to the murder of a Mrs Jian Wang. The principal offender (a Mr Shadrock) was convicted of murder but this Court allowed his appeal and quashed his conviction earlier this year.[1]
[1] R v Shadrock [2011] NZCA 388.
In consequence of the Court’s finding in respect of Mr Shadrock, another person in the same position as the present appellant has also had his conviction quashed on the footing that proof of the principal’s conviction for murder was a necessary element of the offence of being an accessory after the fact. [2]
[2] Tere v R [2011] NZCA 549.
The Crown has accepted by memorandum that the appellant’s appeal against his conviction should be granted and his conviction quashed on the same basis as Mr Shadrock’s other co-offender. The Crown submits that a retrial should be ordered.
We are satisfied that the course proposed by the Crown is appropriate. Accordingly:
(a)The application to extend time for filing the appeal against conviction is granted.
(b)The appellant’ s conviction as an accessory after the fact to murder is quashed.
(c)A retrial is ordered.
(d)Any application for bail is to be dealt with in the High Court.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Vila Lemanu versus The Queen came before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant, Lemanu, was appealing against his conviction as an accessory after the fact to the murder of Mrs Jian Wang. The principal offender, Mr Shadrock, had previously had his conviction for murder quashed by the Court of Appeal. The court was required to determine whether Lemanu's conviction should also be quashed, and if so, whether a retrial was warranted. The court had to consider whether proof of the principal's conviction for murder was a necessary element of the offence of being an accessory after the fact.

The court considered the precedent set by the case of Tere v R, in which a similar conviction had been quashed on the basis that proof of the principal's conviction for murder was a necessary element of the offence of being an accessory after the fact. The Crown had accepted that Lemanu's appeal against his conviction should be granted and his conviction quashed on the same basis as the other co-offender in the Shadrock case. The court was satisfied that the course proposed by the Crown was appropriate, and granted the application to extend time for filing the appeal against conviction. The appellant's conviction as an accessory after the fact to murder was quashed, and a retrial was ordered.

The court also noted that any application for bail was to be dealt with in the High Court. The decision was made on the basis of the precedent set by previous cases and the acceptance of the Crown that the appellant's appeal against his conviction should be granted. The court's decision to quash Lemanu's conviction and order a retrial was in line with the principles established in previous cases, and provided a fair outcome for both the appellant and the Crown. The decision also ensured that the legal process was followed and that the appellant's rights were protected.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established