Locke v The King - [2023] NZSC 60

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 9/2023
[2023] NZSC 60

BETWEEN	TRISTAN ROSS LOCKE Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	O’Regan, Ellen France and Kós JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person Z R Johnston for Respondent
Judgment:	18 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Locke’s neighbour, Mr Cowling, objected to the volume at which Mr Locke was playing music. This eventually resulted in Mr Cowling turning off the power supply more than once to Mr Locke’s property. Mr Locke, who is autistic and has mental health issues, went over to Mr Cowling’s property and stabbed him three times at his front door. Mr Cowling died.
Mr Locke admitted stabbing Mr Cowling but denied murderous intent. He was convicted of murder by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years.[1]
[1]R v Locke [2021] NZHC 1843 (Mander J).
Mr Locke appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal, where he represented himself.[2] The Court addressed particularly the three convictions grounds (of the 20 presented) that could be said to be arguable:
(a)the admissibility of Detective Henderson-Rauter’s evidence, which included unsympathetic remarks – they are hardly admissions of guilt – made by Mr Locke;
(b)the admissibility of Mr Locke’s letter to his father, written while awaiting trial and in which he wrote that he “got one useless New Zealander and got to watch him die like a bitch”;[3] and
(c)the reasonableness of the jury’s verdict.
[2]Locke v R [2022] NZCA 616 (Gilbert, Muir and Gendall JJ) [CA judgment].
[3]Admissibility was challenged unsuccessfully pre-trial: R v Locke [2021] NZHC 938 (Brewer J).
As to these grounds, the Court of Appeal concluded:
(a)The detective’s statement had been read to the jury with the consent of Mr Locke’s trial counsel. That consent was assumed to have been on Mr Locke’s instructions, in the absence of a waiver of privilege. Nor was there any basis to exclude the evidence as unfairly or improperly obtained.[4]
(b)As to the letter Mr Locke wrote to his father, a psychiatrist provided contextual explanation for the letter at trial, and the trial Judge gave specific prejudice directions to the jury. Dismissing that ground, the Court of Appeal held that the jury could be expected to have followed those directions, which were carefully tailored to guard against the risk of unfair prejudice arising.[5]
(c)There was more than sufficient evidence to justify the jury’s verdict that Mr Locke acted with murderous intent when he stabbed Mr Cowling three times in the chest. Even if Mr Locke may not have intended to kill Mr Cowling when he stabbed him, there was ample evidence of a reckless killing.[6]

Proposed appeal

[4]CA judgment, above n 2, at [55]–[65].

[5]At [67]–[68].

[6]At [70].

Mr Locke submits that a miscarriage of justice will occur if leave is not granted.[7] In his written submissions in support of his application for…

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 Locke v The King

Details

AGLC: Locke v The King [2023] NZSC 60
Case: [2023] NZSC 60
Decision Date: 18 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application for leave to appeal by Tristan Ross Locke, who was convicted of murdering his neighbour, Mr Cowling. The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, affirming Locke's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum of 10 years. Locke, who has autism and mental health issues, admitted to stabbing Mr Cowling but denied intent to kill. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed Locke’s appeal, finding the evidence sufficient to support the jury’s verdict of murder and rejecting the grounds of appeal relating to the admissibility of certain evidence and the reasonableness of the jury’s verdict.

The legal issues in this case centered on the admissibility of evidence, the reasonableness of the jury's verdict, and whether there was a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal had already examined and dismissed three arguable grounds of appeal: the admissibility of the detective's statement, the letter Locke wrote to his father, and the reasonableness of the jury's verdict. Locke sought leave to appeal, arguing that a miscarriage of justice would occur without it. He re-advanced the same grounds of appeal and claimed bias on the part of the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court found that the application for leave to appeal did not meet the criteria under the Senior Courts Act 2016. The Court concluded that Locke's submissions merely sought to reargue the facts of the case, which had already been decided by the jury. The Court of Appeal had considered Locke's grounds of appeal with care and compassion, and there was no basis for a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Court also noted that there was no issue of general or public importance evident in the appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders