Levin v Ikiua - [2010] NZCA 309

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA555/2009
[2010] NZCA 309
BETWEENWINSTON JAMES SHANE YOUNG

Appellant

ANDTHE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:2 June 2010

Court:Arnold, Wild and Simon France JJ
Counsel:G J King for Appellant

H W Ebersohn and F E Guy Kidd for Respondent

Judgment:19 July 2010 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Simon France J)
Introduction
[1] On 26 May 2006, the final day for paying quarterly rates, there was an armed robbery of the offices of the Palmerston North City Council. A large sum of cash and numerous cheques were stolen. Ultimately two people were charged with the offence. Mr Young was convicted, and the other, Mr Woods, was acquitted. Mr Young appeals his conviction on two grounds:
(a)the guilty verdict was unreasonable in that it was not available on the evidence;
(b)the acquittal of his co‑accused highlights concerns about the viability of differing verdicts, and the adequacy of the summing up in this regard.

Facts
[2]        Two women were counting the money in the Council’s offices at the end of the day. When it was completed, one of them took the cash into the safe room. An armed robber was inside, hiding. The subsequent commotion caused the other woman to enter the safe area. Thereafter both were detained at gunpoint, and required to load the cash and cheques into a backpack. The robber escaped through an emergency door. During the robbery he had been wearing latex gloves.
[3]        From the outset it was apparent that the robber had familiarity with the systems and layout, and so had information from a source who knew how things were done.
[4]        The Crown case was that Mr Young was the robber. It was said that he was assisted by Mr Woods, who was a long time companion of one of the two women who were in the safe room at the time of the robbery. The theory was that Mr Woods provided the inside information, and acted as a lookout on the day, alerting Mr Young as to the correct time to do it.
Issues on appeal
[5]        The route to convicting Mr Young can be described in concise terms. On the morning following the robbery, a farmer found a discarded jacket outside his property, on the side of the road on one of the highways leading out of Palmerston North. Inside the pocket of the jacket were a balaclava and two pairs of latex gloves. This clothing was handed to the police three days later. The police then themselves went to the scene and nearby found a pair of track pants.
[6]        The Crown case was that these items were the clothing worn by the robber. It was said that they were similar to the clothing being worn by a person seen on CCTV footage in the building, and who the Crown said was the robber. It was broadly consistent with, and not plainly inconsistent…

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 Levin v Ikiua

Details

AGLC: Young v The Queen [2010] NZCA 309
Case: [2010] NZCA 309
Decision Date: 19 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Winston James Shane Young appeals his conviction for armed robbery, arguing that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and that the acquittal of his co-accused, Mr Woods, highlights issues with the viability of differing verdicts and the adequacy of the summing up. The court must determine if the jury could reasonably have been satisfied that Young was guilty based on the evidence presented. The main evidence against Young includes a jacket, balaclava, and latex gloves found by the roadside, which the prosecution claims were worn by the robber. DNA evidence from the latex gloves links Young to the crime, with a probability of 30,000 million to one that the DNA belongs to someone other than Young. The court finds that the DNA evidence was reliable and that the jury was entitled to accept it as proof of Young's guilt. The court also considers the significance of the acquittal of Mr Woods, who was alleged to have provided inside information to Young. The court finds that the acquittal does not affect the correctness of Young's conviction, as the evidence against each defendant was different and the jury's verdicts were not inconsistent. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Orders