R v Antonievic (No 2) - [2015] NZHC 439

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2011-042-000869

CRI-2011-042-000876 [2015] NZHC 439

THE QUEEN

v

TAYLOR IVAN ANTONIEVIC THOMAS JOSEPH BASHFORD NATALIE JEAN BUSCH
COLIN CHINNOCK JORDAN JOHN DALY

JASON PETER GEORGE FRIEND JASON PAUL GRIFFITHS GRANT ROY HAYWARD TERRY JONES
HAYLEY JOANNE KIRKWOOD MARK JAMES LEE
RUSSELL PHILLIP LLOYD JOSEPH MARK PAHL GREGORY JOHN PAGE ROGER PAUL PATRICK
GLYN PATRICK RUTLEDGE CRAIG PETER SMITH DAMIAN JOHN STACEY ROBERT JOHN STEWART GLEN ROSS THOMPSON

R v ANTONIEVIC (No 2) [2015] NZHC 439 [11 March 2015]

Hearing: 6 March 2015

Counsel:

M A O'Donoghue for Crown
P H B Hall QC and S W Rollo (via Telephone) for Defendants
Bashford, Stacey and Lee
J R Rapley and S W Rollo for Defendant Patrick (via
Telephone)

S W Rollo for Defendants Pahl and Friend (via Telephone) A J D Bamford for Defendant Jones, Lloyd and Page

C P Stevenson and T H A Spear for Defendant Hayward
J C S Sandston for Defendant Rutledge

P H B Hall QC (acting on instructions on behalf of C W Stevenson) for Defendant Thompson

A N D Garrett for Defendant Chinnock
K H Cook for Defendants Kirkwood and Griffiths
P L Borich (attendance excused) for Defendant Stewart
S J Zindel for Defendants Antonievic and Smith
S G Bailey (attendance excused) for Defendant Daly
R A Harrison for Defendant Busch

Judgment:

11 March 2015

JUDGMENT (No 2) OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] This judgment is the sequel to my judgment of 20 February 2015,1 and should be read in conjunction with that judgment.

[2] In my 20 February 2015 judgment I concluded that the police had obtained evidence improperly as part of Operations Explorer and Holy, which were undertaken in relation to the Red Devils Motorcycle Club (Red Devils) in Nelson. The defendants are members or associates of the Red Devils. The evidence which was obtained improperly was gathered by the police from June 2010 to March 2011
as a consequence of a false warrant and prosecution scenario which is fully

1 R v Antonievic [2015] NZHC 230.

explained in my 20 February judgment,2 and is referred to briefly in paragraphs [14]

to [15] of this judgment.

[3] The effect of my 20 February judgment is that all evidence obtained by the police from June 2010 to March 2011 will, apart from one category of cases, be excluded from the defendants’ trials pursuant to s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006 (the Act). The exception relates to evidence obtained from June 2010 to March 2011 in relation to “serious” charges. Evidence relating to “serious” charges is admissible even though it was obtained improperly by the police.

[4] The issue as to what charges are “serious” was reserved for a further hearing

which was conducted on 6 March 2015.

[5] This judgment explains which charges are “serious”. My analysis…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Antonievic (No 2) [2015] NZHC 439
Case: [2015] NZHC 439
Decision Date: 11 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Antonievic (No 2) involved 20 defendants facing a total of 148 charges, with the trials of the first group of 11 defendants scheduled to commence on 4 May 2015 and the trials of the second group of 10 defendants scheduled to commence in August 2015. The court had to determine which charges were "serious" and could be adduced by the Crown as evidence. The court's analysis involved evaluating the police summaries of facts, the potential harm to individuals and society from the alleged offending, the extent to which the offending involved "concerted criminal activity", and the general range of sentences that might be imposed upon conviction. The court concluded that the following charges were "serious": Jones (charges 4, 5, 6, 9, 19, 45, 68, 75, 76, 80 and 81), Hayward (charges 4, 30 and 45), Stacey (charge 68), Thompson (charges 68, 91 and 94), Stewart (charges 1, 4, 7, 12, 22 and 25), Busch (charges 1, 3, 5, 8 and 13), and Antonievic (charge 14). Evidence obtained by the police from 1 June 2010 to 11 March 2011 in relation to the remaining charges could not be produced by the Crown because that evidence was excluded pursuant to s 30 of the Act. The total number of defendants and charges would be significantly reduced and it was likely that Trials 1 and 2 would be merged into one trial.

Orders