Legal Research
Cases
McNaughton v R

McNaughton v R

Case [2013] NZCA 657 19 December 2013

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAIALBLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF RETRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA260/2012 [2013] NZCA 657

BETWEEN
BLAIR ROBERT MCNAUGHTON

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 9 and 10 October 2013

Court:

O'Regan P, Hammond and Harrison JJ

Counsel:

R M Lithgow QC and P A Walker for Appellant
L C Preston for Respondent

Judgment:

19 December 2013 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed.

B The conviction is quashed and a retrial is ordered.

COrder prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial.
Publication in law report or law digest permitted.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harrison J)

MCNAUGHTON V R CA260/2012 [2013] NZCA 657 [19 December 2013]

Introduction

[1] Blair McNaughton was found guilty of one charge of murdering Troy Minto following his retrial in the High Court at Nelson before Miller J and a jury. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum sentence of 10 years.1

[2] It was undisputed at trial that Mr McNaughton killed Mr Minto by shooting him through the chest with a shotgun at close range. Mr McNaughton’s principal defence was that he acted in self-defence. He also denied that he acted with murderous intent.

[3] Mr McNaughton appeals against his conviction on a number of grounds. Two are relevant to our decision: (a) whether the Crown wrongly invited the jury to infer guilt from Mr McNaughton’s failure to disclose the defence of self-defence prior to trial;2 and (b) whether the prosecutor failed to cross-examine Mr McNaughton on a relevant matter, incorporating the related issue of whether the Judge gave an erroneous direction in answer to a jury question.3 Mr Lithgow QC for Mr McNaughton says that if the appeal is upheld on either ground this Court should substitute a verdict of manslaughter for murder. That is because the common law of New Zealand recognises the partial defence of excessive self-defence.

[4] It is unnecessary for us to address the other grounds advanced by Mr Lithgow except to reject his submission that the trial Judge wrongly admitted in evidence Mr McNaughton’s statement to the police.

Facts

[5] In allowing Mr McNaughton’s appeal against conviction for murder at his first trial this Court narrated the relevant facts as follows:4

[11] The accounts of witnesses to the events leading up to the shooting were confused and inconsistent. The summary that follows is intended to set the scene for the consideration of the issues on appeal. As there are disputes about a number of factual matters, the summary should be seen as no more

1 R…

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 McNaughton v R

Details

AGLC: McNaughton v R [2013] NZCA 657
Case: [2013] NZCA 657
Decision Date: 19 December 2013 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Blair McNaughton appealed his conviction for murdering Troy Minto. The Court of Appeal found that two errors during the trial required a retrial. First, the prosecutor improperly attacked the credibility of Mr McNaughton’s self-defence claim by repeatedly drawing the jury’s attention to his failure to raise it before the trial. The trial judge failed to give a direction to the jury on the issue, which the Court found was necessary. Second, the prosecutor did not challenge Mr McNaughton’s evidence that he did not believe he had other options at the time of the shooting, which was an important part of the self-defence inquiry. The trial judge also failed to give a direction to the jury on this issue, which the Court found was necessary. The Court did not find it necessary to address the other grounds of appeal. The Court declined to recognise the partial defence of excessive self-defence in New Zealand, noting that it was not part of the common law in 1961. The Court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The Court also made an order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings until final disposition of the retrial.

Orders