For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA818/2012 [2013] NZCA 483
BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
Appellant
AND
TAYLOR IVAN ANTONIEVIC Respondent
CA819/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDTHOMAS JOSEPH BASHFORD Respondent
CA820/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDNATALIE JEAN BUSCH Respondent
CA821/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDCOLIN CHINNOCK Respondent
CA822/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDJORDAN JOHN DALY Respondent
R V ANTONIEVIC & ORS CA818/2012 & ORS [2013] NZCA 483 [15 October 2013]
CA823/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDJASON PETER GEORGE FRIEND Respondent
CA824/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDJASON PAUL GRIFFITHS Respondent
CA825/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDGRANT ROY HAYWARD Respondent
CA826/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDTERRY JONES Respondent
CA827/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDHAYLEY JOANNE KIRKWOOD Respondent
CA828/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDMARK JAMES LEE Respondent
CA829/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDRUSSELL PHILLIP LLOYD Respondent
CA830/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDJOSEPH MARK PAHL Respondent
CA831/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDGREGORY JON PAGE Respondent
CA832/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDROGER PAUL PATRICK Respondent
CA833/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDGLYN PATRICK RUTLEDGE Respondent
CA834/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDCRAIG PETER SMITH Respondent
CA835/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDDAMIAN JOHN STACEY Respondent
CA836/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDROBERT JOHN STEWART Respondent
CA837/2012
AND BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant
ANDGLEN ROSS THOMPSON Respondent
Hearing:
14 August 2013
Court:
O’Regan P, French and Asher JJ
Counsel:
C L Mander, A Markham and P D Marshall for Appellant
No appearance for Respondent Antonievic
P H B Hall QC and S W Rollo for Respondents Bashford, Patrick and Stacey
R A Harrison for Respondents Busch A N D Garrett for Respondent Chinnock
R M Lithgow QC and A J D Bamford for Respondents Daly, Jones, Lloyd, Page and Smith
S W Rollo for Respondents Friend and Pahl K H Cook for Respondents Griffiths and Kirkwood No appearance for Respondent Hayward G J X McCoy and K J McCoy for Respondent Lee No appearance for Respondent Rutledge P L Borich for Respondent Stewart No appearance for Respondent Thompson
Judgment:
15 October 2013 at 10 am
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A We answer the question referred for the opinion of this Court:
“Was I wrong to stay all prosecutions of twenty-one accused in relation to
charges fairly said to flow from the Operation Explorer investigation?” “Yes”.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The stay granted by the High Court is set aside.
False charges [16] Involvement of the Chief Judge [20] Charges faced by respondents [30]
Question of law [31] The substantive question [47] The law [48] Importance of the “but for” test [60]
Is the remedy prospective? [80] The present case: the High Court judgment [95] Our analysis [100]
Conclusion [118] Result [121]
Introduction
[1] This is an…
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 R v Antonievic
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Antonievic [2013] NZCA 483
Case
[2013] NZCA 483
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In R v Antonievic, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered whether the High Court had erred in law by staying the prosecution of 21 defendants. The defendants were charged with a range of serious offences, including participation in an organised criminal group, drug supply, and other crimes. The stay was granted due to alleged misconduct by police during an undercover investigation known as "Operation Explorer," which included the use of a fake search warrant and the laying of false charges. The Crown appealed the decision, arguing that the stay should not have been granted. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had erred in law by focusing on the past misconduct of the police rather than considering whether the trial itself would constitute an abuse of process. The Court concluded that, while the police misconduct was grave, it did not justify staying the trial as the causal link between the misconduct and the trial was weak, and the public interest in having serious criminal charges determined on their merits outweighed the need to discipline the police. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the stay, and ordered that the trial proceed.