McLaughlin v R - [2015] NZCA 339

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA752/2013
[2015] NZCA 339

BETWEEN	JEREMY GEORGE EDWARD MCLAUGHLIN Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	23 June 2015
Court:	Randerson, French and Cooper JJ
Counsel:	R M Lithgow QC for Appellant J C Pike QC and M Wilkinson for Respondent
Judgment:	29 July 2015 at 2:30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction
The Crown case at trial
The appellant’s defence
The trial issue
Grounds of appeal
The DNA evidence

Discussion
Conclusions on the DNA evidence

The lies direction

Discussion
Was there a material risk of miscarriage?

Failure to direct in accordance with s 32 of the Evidence Act

Discussion

Unfair summing-up

Discussion

Result

[1]
[6]
[9]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[18]
[31]
[37]
[43]
[48]
[57]
[62]
[65]
[68]
[71]

Introduction

After a jury trial before Panckhurst J, the appellant Mr McLaughlin was found guilty of murdering Jade Bayliss at Christchurch on 10 November 2011. Mr McLaughlin also pleaded guilty at the outset of his trial to two charges of burglary and arson committed the same day at the house where the victim’s body was found.
Mr McLaughlin was sentenced on the murder charge on 9 October 2013 to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 23 years imprisonment.[1] He was sentenced to concurrent terms of four years for burglary and eight years for arson.[2]
[1]R v McLaughlin [2013] NZHC 2625 at [36].
[2]At [37].
Mr McLaughlin initially appealed against both conviction and sentence but we were informed at the hearing that the sentence appeal was abandoned.
Mr McLaughlin was tried along with his friend Mr Jolon Sweeney who faced two charges as an accessory after the fact and one of attempting to obstruct the course of justice. The essence of the case against him was that he assisted Mr McLaughlin to dispose of certain items stolen from the Bayliss family home. Mr Sweeney pleaded guilty towards the end of the Crown case to one charge as an accessory after the fact and one of arson. He did not give evidence.
A feature of the case is that the police were able to obtain extensive detail of the movements of Mr McLaughlin on 10 November 2011. They did so by a combination of CCTV footage, cell phone data and the evidence of eye-witnesses.

The Crown case at trial

Jade was aged 13 at the time of her death. Mr McLaughlin and her mother, Mrs Bayliss, had been in a relationship for a short period in September and October 2011. The relationship came to an end by early November. On 10 November 2011, Jade was unwell and was home from school alone at the Bayliss family home in Christchurch. The Crown case was that Mr McLaughlin entered the property that morning with the intention of stealing certain items. During the burglary, Mr McLaughlin allegedly encountered Jade and murdered her by strangling her with…

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 McLaughlin v R

Details

AGLC: McLaughlin v R [2015] NZCA 339
Case: [2015] NZCA 339
Decision Date: 29 July 2015 at 2:30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellant, Jeremy George Edward McLaughlin, appealed against his conviction for the murder of Jade Bayliss. McLaughlin was found guilty of the murder after a jury trial and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 23 years. McLaughlin's appeal against conviction was based on four grounds: the nature and significance of the DNA evidence was not treated correctly by the prosecutor or by the Judge; the Judge's lies direction was inadequate and did not conform to s 124 of the Evidence Act 2006; the Judge did not correctly direct the jury in accordance with s 32 of the Evidence Act about the inferences that might be drawn from the appellant's failure to answer police questions during later interviews; and the summing-up was unfair.

The Court found that the approach adopted by the prosecutor and the Judge in relation to the DNA evidence was orthodox and that the jury was entitled to consider the expert evidence in the context of all the evidence adduced at trial. The Court was also satisfied that the failure to comply with s 124(3)(c) of the Evidence Act had the potential to give rise to a miscarriage of justice, but that the nature of the misdirection in the context of an overwhelming Crown case was not such as to give rise to any material risk of miscarriage. The Court rejected the argument that s 32 of the Evidence Act was engaged in respect of the first statement made to the police and submitted that the Judge had correctly directed the jury in relation to the subsequent interviews. Finally, the Court found that the summing-up was not unfair and that the Judge properly put to the jury a fair summary of the defence points.

For the reasons given, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Orders