Legal Research
Cases
R v Antonievic

R v Antonievic

Case [2015] NZHC 1096 21 May 2015

Abuse of Process

Public Confidence in Criminal Justice

Exclusion of Evidence

Misconduct by Police

Criminal Law

Evidence Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-442-000011 [2015] NZHC 1096

THE QUEEN

v

TAYLOR IVAN ANTONIEVIC NATALIE JEAN BUSCH GRANT ROY HAYWARD TERRY JONES
GLYN PATRICK RUTLEDGE ROBERT JOHN STEWART GLEN ROSS THOMPSON

Hearing: 4 May 2015

Counsel:

J M Webber for Crown
K W Jones (acting on instructions from Mr S J Zindel) for
Defendant Antonievic
No appearance required for Defendant Busch
C P Stevenson and T H A Spear for Defendant Hayward
R M Lithgow QC and A J D Bamford for Defendant Jones
J C S Sandston for Defendant Rutledge
No appearance required for Defendant Stewart
C W J Stevenson for Defendant Thompson

Judgment:

21 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J [Applications for Stay of Proceedings]

R v ANTONIEVIC [2015] NZHC 1096 [21 May 2015]

Summary of judgment

[1] All remaining charges based upon evidence obtained after 1 June 2010 are stayed because allowing the trials to continue would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system.1

[2] The small number of remaining charges based upon evidence which pre-date

1 June 2010 are not stayed. The Crown will need to determine whether it wishes to proceed with those charges.

Context

[3] The defendants’ applications to stay all remaining charges arise in the context

of five judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal.

[4] First, in R v Antonievic, Simon France J stayed all charges because of his concerns over significant misconduct engaged in by the police when undertaking an undercover investigation into the defendants.2 I will refer to that misconduct as the “false warrant and prosecution scenario”.

[5] Second, the Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal and reinstated the charges.3 A key element in the Court of Appeal’s reasons for allowing the appeal was the Court of Appeal’s understanding there was no connection between the false warrant and prosecution scenario and the evidence obtained by the police to support the charges.

[6] Third, on 20 February 2015 I ruled that on the basis of the evidence presented to me, there was a connection between the false warrant and prosecution scenario and evidence gathered by the police after the commencement of that scenario on
1 June 2010. I ruled that the evidence in relation to all but the “serious” charges that

1      R v Antonievic [2013] NZCA 483, [2013] 3 NZLR 806 at [48]; Beckham v R [2012] NZCA 603, [2013] 1 NZLR 613 at [43]; R v Maxwell [2010] UKSC 48, [2011] 1 WLR 1837 at [13]; Warren v Attorney-General for Jersey [2011] UKPC 10, [2012] 1 AC 22 at [22].
2      R v Antonievic [2012] NZHC 2686.
3      R v Antonievic [2013] NZCA 483, [2013] 3 NZLR 806.

post-dated 1 June 2010 was excluded under s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006 (Evidence

Act).4 The Crown did not appeal that decision.

[7] Fourth, on 11 March 2015 I identified what I believed were the “serious” charges.5 I ruled that…

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

Details

AGLC: R v Antonievic [2015] NZHC 1096
Case: [2015] NZHC 1096
Decision Date: 21 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, members or associates of the Red Devils Motorcycle Club, applied to stay all remaining charges against them in light of significant misconduct engaged in by the police during an undercover investigation. The High Court granted the applications for stay as to all charges based on evidence obtained after 1 June 2010. The Court reasoned that allowing the trials to continue would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system. The Court found the police misconduct was grave and involved misuse of the criminal justice system. There was a causal connection between the misconduct and the evidence gathered to support the charges that post-dated 1 June 2010. Allowing the trial to continue would invite the community to believe that the Courts implicitly condoned the police misconduct, which would diminish the Court’s ability to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Orders