McGeachin v R - [2017] NZSC 16

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 144/2016
[2017] NZSC 16

BETWEEN	LESLIE MCGEACHIN Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Arnold and OʼRegan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person C A Brook and A B Richards for Respondent
Judgment:	24 February 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
BThe application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr McGeachin was convicted in June 2013, after a jury trial, on five counts of rape, three counts of sexual violation, one count of attempted sexual violation, four counts of other physical violence and three counts of burglary. The offending was committed over a 25 year period against two women.
Mr McGeachin applies for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal on 19 November 2015 dismissing his conviction appeal.[1] Mr McGeachin also seeks leave to appeal against his sentence.[2] The latter is an application for an appeal directly from the District Court as he did not appeal against his sentence to the Court of Appeal.

Conviction appeal

Extension of time

[1]McGeachin v R [2015] NZCA 558 (Kós, Fogarty and Mallon JJ) [McGeachin (CA)].

[2]R v McGeachin DC Wellington CRI-2012-085-2003, 23 July 2013 [McGeachin (original sentencing decision)]; and R v McGeachin [2016] NZDC 24267 [McGeachin (re-sentencing decision)].

Mr McGeachin’s application for leave to appeal against conviction is almost one year out of time.[3] He says that the delay in filing was because he is
[3]Section 239(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 provides that a convicted person must file a notice of application for leave to appeal within 20 working days of the determination being appealed against.
self-represented and was unaware of the time limits. Further, he has been seeking disclosure from the Crown and attributes the delay in his application to this also.
The Crown opposes the application for an extension of time on the basis that there is an inadequate explanation for the delay and Mr McGeachin has not demonstrated a compelling case for granting leave.
We agree with the Crown’s submissions. In any event, for the reasons that follow, Mr McGeachin’s application for leave to appeal would not have succeeded.

Grounds of application

Mr McGeachin asserts that the Crown failed to disclose the complainants’ medical records to substantiate their injuries and also failed to disclose a number of other relevant matters. He says that the complainants lied about the extent of their injuries and colluded with each other. He also alleges scene contamination prior to police inspection.
In the Court of Appeal the main ground of appeal was trial counsel error.[4] Mr McGeachin alleges in this Court that his trial counsel made numerous false statements in her affidavit before the Court of Appeal. He also says that the Court of Appeal wrongly refused to…

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 McGeachin v R

Details

AGLC: McGeachin v R [2017] NZSC 16
Case: [2017] NZSC 16
Decision Date: 24 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In McGeachin v R, Leslie McGeachin sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence for multiple counts of rape, sexual violation, physical violence, and burglary, committed over a 25-year period against two women. The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed both his application for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction and his application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The applications were made against the Crown, represented by the Solicitor-General, and the Court of Appeal's earlier decision to dismiss Mr McGeachin's conviction appeal was upheld.

The legal issues before the Court included whether Mr McGeachin's application for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction was justified, given that it was filed almost a year out of the statutory 20-working-day time limit, and whether the grounds of appeal against conviction and sentence were sufficient to warrant leave to appeal. The Court also had to consider whether the Crown's failure to disclose certain information constituted a miscarriage of justice and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate.

The Court found that Mr McGeachin's application for an extension of time was unjustified, as he had not provided a compelling reason for the delay. The Court further found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable and that the evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to convict Mr McGeachin. The Court also held that the grounds of appeal against conviction, including the alleged failure to disclose medical records and the assertion that the complainants had colluded, were not sufficient to warrant leave to appeal. The Court determined that the new sentence imposed by the District Court, which was favourable to Mr McGeachin, was not a suitable vehicle for resolving the issue of sentence appeal. Additionally, the Court found that Mr McGeachin's complaints about the original sentencing exercise should have been raised before the Court of Appeal, and the threshold for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court was not met.

As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed Mr McGeachin's application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against his conviction and his application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The Court's decision was based on the fact that the application for an extension of time was unjustified, the grounds of appeal against conviction were not sufficient, and the complaints about the original sentencing exercise should have been raised before the Court of Appeal.

Orders