Meyrick v The Queen - [2005] NZCA 150

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA513/04
THE QUEEN
v
MICHAEL BRIAN MEYRICK
Hearing:16 May 2005

Court:William Young, Goddard and Salmon JJ
Counsel:Appellant in person

J M Jelas for Crown

Judgment:14 June 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is allowed, the appellant’s conviction is set-aside and a re-trial is directed.
REASONS
(Given by William Young J)
Introduction
[1]        On 19 October 2004 the appellant was tried before Judge Behrens QC (sitting without a jury) on an indictment which alleged that he had wilfully attempted to pervert the course of justice. In an oral judgment, delivered at the end of the trial, the Judge found the appellant guilty.
[2]        The appellant now appeals against conviction.
Background
[3]        In May 2003, the appellant was living with his partner, Ms Marion Ashby in Huntly.
[4]        On 4 May 2003, their daughter, Ms Amy Meyrick (“Amy”) showed Ms Ashby a picture that she had found on a computer which was in the appellant’s office at the family home. The picture was of an adult male having sex with a child. A large number of other picture files were stored on the computer.
[5]        Ms Ashby packed her bags and left home. She returned the next day (5 May) and removed the computer. The next morning (6 May), the appellant telephoned Ms Ashby and asked, unsuccessfully, for the return of the computer. Instead, she took the computer to Amy who removed the hard drive. Ms Ashby took possession of the hard drive leaving Amy with the computer tower. Ms Ashby’s evidence at trial was that she offered to return the computer tower to the appellant but he did not wish to uplift it as he considered that it “was useless without the hard drive”.
[6]        Amy inserted another hard drive in the computer tower and used it for her own purposes.
[7]        On 6 August 2003, Ms Ashby handed the hard drive to the police.
[8]        The police obtained search warrants for the appellant’s house and vehicle and also Amy’s address in Auckland.
[9]        On 10 September, the police executed a search warrant at the appellant’s home in Huntly. The police removed from the home several other computers together with disks, equipment, and related paraphernalia. On the same day, Detective Sergeant Carr of the police telephoned Ms Ashby and told her that he needed to speak to Amy and that he had a search warrant that authorised him to seize the computer tower. Ms Ashby told Amy this and arranged for her to meet with Detective Sergeant Carr at her flat in Auckland at 10.30am on Friday 12 September 2003.
[10]      On the morning of 12 September 2003, the appellant travelled from Huntly to Amy’s flat in Auckland. The evidence makes it clear that this visit was a result of a discussion which had taken place earlier between the appellant and Amy in which the appellant had learnt that the police were going to visit Amy on the morning of 12 September.…

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 Meyrick v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Meyrick v The Queen [2005] NZCA 150
Case: [2005] NZCA 150
Decision Date: 14 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Meyrick v The Queen, the appellant, Michael Brian Meyrick, was convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice by removing a computer tower from his daughter's residence prior to a scheduled police visit. The conviction was appealed on the grounds that the trial judge's findings were insufficient to support a guilty verdict. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding a miscarriage of justice and directing a retrial. The central issue was whether the appellant's actions had the tendency and requisite intent to pervert the course of justice. The Court noted that the appellant's conviction hinged on his awareness of the search warrant and the evidential significance of the computer tower, neither of which were conclusively established. The appellant's credibility was also in question, but his explanation for his actions, if believed, suggested a lack of intent to pervert justice. The Court concluded that without clear findings on these critical issues, the conviction could not stand.

Orders