Hearing:	23 and 24 October 2013
Court:	Miller, Venning and Andrews JJ
Counsel:	L B Cordwell for Appellant P K Hamlin and Z R Hamill for Respondent
Judgment:	25 November 2013 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

James Joseph Ruhe Lawrence, known as JJ, died on 14 November 2011, aged two, at the Orakei home he and his mother, Josie Lawrence, shared with Mr Loffley.
JJ suffered a blow which split his liver and pancreas against his spine, causing catastrophic internal bleeding, extreme pain and, within a very short time, death. No independent eyewitness saw what happened, but the parties agree that it was no accident.
It is said that one of two people might have killed JJ. The first is Mr Loffley, the second Ms Lawrence. Mr Loffley stood trial for murder in the High Court at Auckland. His defence was that the Crown could not prove that it was he who inflicted the injury, for Ms Lawrence had the opportunity and he was out of the house when it likely happened.
Ms Lawrence gave evidence, both incriminating him and denying that she had harmed JJ. She also denied that she had confessed at JJ’s tangi, in a private conversation with Mr Loffley. He exercised his right to silence, and the trial Judge, Keane J, directed the jury that counsel’s questions about the alleged tangi confession were not evidence. The jury found Mr Loffley guilty of murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 19 years.
Mr Loffley now appeals his conviction, primarily for miscarriage from counsel error. He marshals an array of allegations against trial counsel, Mr Chambers. Most of them go to a complaint that he was badly informed and advised before he elected not to give evidence; he says the election was wrong, for his defence rested on evidence about Ms Lawrence’s confession that only he could give. He argues too that counsel failed adequately to challenge Ms Lawrence in cross-examination and ought to have resisted propensity evidence of his earlier violence against JJ, Ms Lawrence, a previous partner and other children. Keane J is said to have erred by failing to exclude the propensity evidence of his own volition.
The appeal rests substantially on the contested facts on which most of these allegations are premised. We received lengthy affidavits from Messrs Loffley and Chambers, both of whom also gave oral evidence, and shorter affidavits from four police officers who dealt with Mr Loffley.

The narrative

We begin with a short and now largely uncontroversial narrative which also locates the issues in their factual setting.
Ms Lawrence and JJ moved into the Orakei house in April 2011. Mr Loffley moved in during June 2011. JJ suffered two broken arms while Mr Loffley lived with Ms Lawrence, one…

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 Loffley v R

Details

AGLC: Loffley v R [2013] NZCA 579
Case: [2013] NZCA 579
Decision Date: 25 November 2013 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joel Loffley appeals against his conviction for the murder of James Joseph Ruhe Lawrence, arguing that counsel error led to a miscarriage of justice. Loffley claims that counsel failed to adequately inform him about the implications of not giving evidence, did not sufficiently cross-examine the victim's mother, and failed to object to the admission of propensity evidence. The Court of Appeal found that Loffley's claims were without merit, and dismissed the appeal. The court found that counsel had adequately informed Loffley about the implications of not giving evidence, and that the decision not to testify was made by Loffley himself. The court also found that the cross-examination of the victim's mother was sufficient, and that the propensity evidence was admissible. Therefore, the Court of Appeal dismissed Loffley's appeal and upheld his conviction for murder.

Orders