Neale v R - [2010] NZCA 167

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA341/2009
[2010] NZCA 167
BETWEENDIONNE LIZA NEALE

Appellant

ANDTHE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:23 March 2010

Court:William Young P, Hammond and Baragwanath JJ
Counsel:G J King for Applicant

C L Mander for Respondent

Judgment:5 May 2010 at 11.00am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for directions is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Hammond J)
[1]        We have before us an application for directions as to how one of the grounds of appeal in this case is to be advanced.
[2]        Ms Neale was convicted of murdering Mr Reece Shadbolt on 6 February 2007.[1] Mr Shadbolt died as a result of a single stab wound to the chest and a subsequent series of stab wounds. Ms Neale claimed that the first stab wound was the result of an accident; and the subsequent series of stab wounds was inflicted in self defence. It was also advanced on her behalf that she lacked the requisite mens rea under s 167 (a) (intent) or s 167 (b) (reckless intent) of the Crimes Act 1961. Alternatively, it was said that she was provoked into doing what she did.
[1]      R v Neale HC Auckland CRI-2007-004-8509, 12 June 2009.
[3]        After the trial one of the jurors, after seeking legal advice, wrote a letter expressing concerns she had about her experience as a juror in the trial. This letter was sent to the trial Judge; a Registrar of the High Court at Auckland; the General Manager of Higher Courts, Ministry of Justice; and the Secretary to the New Zealand Law Society, Criminal Law Committee.
[4]        The juror raised four kinds of concerns. The first related to her personal opinion that jurors needed further education as to their role. A second related to the jury dynamics prior to deliberation. A third related to the deliberation process itself. A fourth went to the apparent lack of support available to jurors post-trial and verdict.
[5]        It is the third of these concerns which is of relevance for present purposes, insofar as that concern is said to give rise to possible jury misconduct.
[6]        Evidently the jury had some difficulty agreeing on a particular issue. An initial attempt to reach a conclusion on that issue was aborted. When the jury returned to consider it, according to the juror’s letter, the deliberations degenerated. The letter writer apparently felt that she was not permitted to set out her reasons for doubting whether Ms Neale had intended to kill Mr Shadbolt. She became upset. She felt bullied by one juror in particular. But she “gave in” on the issue, and the jury subsequently delivered its verdict that Ms Neale was guilty of murder. She said she was “upset, distraught and disturbed by the way the verdict was reached by we, the jury” and was thus motivated to write the letter. The conviction was entered before the law changed to allow majority verdicts. [2]
[2]This change was brought about by the insertion of s 29C…

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 Neale v R

Details

AGLC: Neale v R [2010] NZCA 167
Case: [2010] NZCA 167
Decision Date: 5 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an application for directions in the case of Neale v R. Ms. Neale was convicted of murdering Mr. Reece Shadbolt and appealed against her conviction. The appeal focused on the issue of whether there was jury misconduct during the deliberations, which could have impacted the verdict. One of the jurors had written a letter expressing concerns about the deliberation process, including feeling bullied and not being allowed to express her doubts about Ms. Neale's intent. The court was required to decide whether the concerns raised by the juror were sufficient to warrant further investigation into the possibility of jury misconduct and if an independent barrister should be appointed to obtain an affidavit from the juror.

The court considered the common law rule that jury verdicts must remain inscrutable to promote the finality of verdicts and uninhibited discussion during jury deliberations. The court also referred to the Evidence Act 2006, which prohibits giving evidence about jury deliberations but allows for exceptions in exceptional circumstances. The court found that the concerns expressed by the juror, such as feeling bullied and not being allowed to express her doubts, were not sufficient to meet the required standard under s 76(3) of the Evidence Act 2006. The court declined to make the suggested direction that an independent barrister should be appointed to obtain an affidavit from the juror.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for directions and did not find the concerns raised by the juror to be sufficient to warrant further investigation into the possibility of jury misconduct. As a result, the court did not make any further directions in the case. The appeal against Ms. Neale's conviction for murder will not be advanced on the basis of the juror's concerns about the deliberation process.

Orders