Leonard v The Queen - [2010] NZCA 171

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA642/2009
[2010] NZCA 171
BETWEENVINCENT PATRICK LEONARD

Appellant

ANDTHE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:3 and 4 May 2010

Court:Chambers, Potter and Miller JJ
Counsel:K C Bailey for Appellant

N P Chisnall and A L Patterson for Crown

Judgment:5 May 2010 at 10.30 am

Reasons:             2 June 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A            The appeal against conviction is allowed.
B            All the verdicts are set aside and the convictions are quashed.
C            No order for retrial.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Chambers J)
Table of Contents
Para No

An arson in Whangarei  [1]
Grounds of appeal  [5]
Were the verdicts unreasonable?
The test  [9]
The Crown case against Mr Leonard  [11]
(a)      An inside job and Mr Leonard had been an insider  [12]
(b)Mr Leonard was away from his home when the arson
took place  [34]
(c)       Mr Leonard attempted to set up an alibi  [37]
(d)      Mr Leonard had a motive                  [39]
(e)      The surveillance camera evidence  [60]

(f) The accelerant the arsonist used [90]

Conclusion [94]

Result  [101]
An arson in Whangarei
[1]        On the morning of Sunday, 12 November 2006, somebody intentionally started a fire at the business premises of Pat Gavin Kitchens in Whangarei. The fire caused considerable damage. On the Monday, Detective Andrew Clubley was assigned to the investigation. Within two days he thought he had cracked the case. The culprit, he believed, was Vincent Leonard, the former Production Manager of Gavins. That day, he swore an affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant. In it, he expressed the belief that Mr Leonard “was responsible for the arson and burglary”. The affidavit contained little to support that belief. But the affidavit suggested the police had one piece of evidence that was telling. That was footage from surveillance cameras on a neighbouring building. According to Detective Clubley, those cameras had “captured a person fitting the description of Vincent Leonard” at about the time the fire occurred. A search warrant was issued, permitting the police to search Mr Leonard’s home.
[2]        The next morning, Detective Clubley swore an identical affidavit in support of an application to search Mr Leonard’s work address. That warrant too was issued. Before those warrants were executed, Detective Clubley arrived unannounced at Mr Leonard’s workplace and said he would like to speak to him about the arson at Gavins. He invited Mr Leonard to come to the Whangarei Police Station. Mr Leonard agreed. The detective gave Mr Leonard his rights. Mr Leonard agreed to be interviewed, the interview being recorded on videotape. Mr Leonard’s account was entirely exculpatory. Immediately after the interview, Mr Leonard was arrested and charged with the arson and burglary. While this was going on, other police officers were executing the warrants at Mr Leonard’s home and workplace. They seized various items of interest.
[3]        Mr Leonard’s first trial resulted in a hung jury. His second trial was aborted part way through.[1] The third trial, which took place in June last…

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 Leonard v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Leonard v The Queen [2010] NZCA 171
Case: [2010] NZCA 171
Decision Date: 5 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Leonard v The Queen, the appellant, Vincent Patrick Leonard, was convicted of arson, burglary, and causing intentional damage to the business premises of Pat Gavin Kitchens. The appeal against conviction was allowed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The Court found that the verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence, and therefore set aside all the verdicts and quashed the convictions. The Court of Appeal examined the evidence presented in the case and found that the Crown's case was circumstantial and based on several strands, including the possibility that the arson was an inside job, Mr Leonard being away from his home at the time of the arson, his attempt to set up an alibi, his alleged motive, and the surveillance camera evidence. However, the Court found that the evidence was not strong enough to prove Mr Leonard's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also highlighted the limitations of the surveillance camera evidence and the difficulties in identifying the accelerant used in the arson. The Court concluded that, having regard to all the evidence, the jury could not reasonably have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Leonard was the arsonist. The appeal was allowed, and the convictions were quashed.

Orders