Lockett v The Queen - [2018] NZCA 47

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA258/2017
[2018] NZCA 47

BETWEEN	JAMIE BEATTIE LOCKETT Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	1 March 2018
Court:	Gilbert, Simon France and Whata JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in Person E J Hoskin for Respondent
Judgment:	14 March 2018 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to bring a second appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Simon France J)

Mr Lockett seeks leave to bring a second appeal in relation to his convictions.
In late August 2014, Mr Lockett was charged with threatening to kill, speaking threateningly (x2), assault and burglary. The charges relate to what seems to be an ongoing conflict with another person living in the area. Mr Lockett was remanded in custody. On 16 December 2014 Mr Lockett, still remanded in custody, was brought to the Court. At that time he had discussions with a duty solicitor, who in turn discussed the charges with the prosecutor. As a consequence of these discussions, the threatening to kill charge was reduced to a third charge of speaking threateningly, and the burglary charge was withdrawn.
Mr Lockett then pleaded guilty. When doing so he signed the summary of facts and charge sheets, but added the words “under duress”. This was a reference to the fact that he was pleading guilty so as to bring to an end his custodial remand. He had elected trial by jury and there would be a considerable time until trial. We are advised the sentence imposed on 16 December 2014 equated to time served and Mr Lockett was released that day.
Mr Lockett’s primary grievance is that he was denied bail on the basis of what he says is an incorrect police opposition to bail which alleged he was a threat to the safety of police officers. He does not, however, appear to have appealed the bail decision. Nor is it suggested Mr Lockett misunderstood the choice he was making in deciding to plead guilty.
Six months after the sentencing, Mr Lockett applied for a retrial. The District Court declined the application.[1] Mr Lockett then appealed out of time to the High Court. An extension of time within which to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed by Edwards J.[2] Mr Lockett now brings the present application.
[1]New Zealand Police v Lockett [2016] NZDC 4551.
[2]Lockett v New Zealand Police [2017] NZHC 88.
Mr Lockett advances the same grounds as in the lower courts which revolve around the proposition that he only pleaded guilty under duress. This proposition is supplemented by submissions that he has a defence to all charges sourced in s 56(1) of the Crimes Act 1961, and that a successful defence of a subsequent burglary charge gives rise to the probability of the same outcome here.[3] These three matters were each considered by Edwards J who concluded that none afforded a prospect of success at a retrial.
[3]New Zealand Police v Lockett [2015]…

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 Lockett v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lockett v The Queen [2018] NZCA 47
Case: [2018] NZCA 47
Decision Date: 14 March 2018 at 9.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an application by Jamie Beattie Lockett to bring a second appeal against his convictions for speaking threateningly, assault, and a reduced charge of threatening to kill. Lockett's appeal followed a previous dismissal of an appeal by the High Court, which had ruled that Lockett's claims were without merit. The central issue was whether Lockett could withdraw his guilty plea on the basis that it was entered under duress, and if there was any error in the process followed by the courts in considering his application.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the legal principles governing the withdrawal of a guilty plea post-sentencing, referencing the case of R v Le Page. It was established that such withdrawals are only allowed if there is a clear miscarriage of justice or a significant error. The Court found no such error in the previous decisions, as Lockett's claims did not meet the necessary criteria. The Court also noted that Lockett had not appealed the bail decision nor misunderstood the implications of his plea. The Court of Appeal concluded that the process error in not allowing Lockett to respond to an affidavit did not warrant a further appeal, as it would not have materially affected the outcome.

Lockett's application for leave to bring a second appeal was dismissed. The Court found no grounds to revisit the previous decisions, confirming the High Court's ruling that Lockett's claims were without merit and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal emphasized that Lockett's claims were not of general or public importance, and no new evidence had been presented that would change the outcome.

Orders