R v Cavanagh - [2015] NZHC 1394

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN

LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-004-5509

[2015] NZHC 1394

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL JOSEPH CAVANAGH DEBORAH ANNE HENRY

SHANNON STEVENS DAVID GERRARD O'CARROLL

Hearing: 10 June 2015

Appearances:

R M A McCoubrey for Crown S J Bonnar QC for Cavanagh B Sellars for Henry

A G Speed for Stevens
R M Mansfield for O'Carroll

Judgment:

19 June 2015

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Whata on 19 June 2015 at 11.00 a.m., pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland Copies to:
S J Bonnar QC, Auckland B Sellars, Auckland
A G Speed, Auckland
R M Mansfield, Auckland

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

R v CAVANAGH, HENRY, STEVENS , O'CARROLL [2015] NZHC 1394 [19 June 2015]

[1]This judgment concerns an application by the Crown for the following orders:

(a)The previous convictions of Michael Joseph Cavanagh, Shannon Stevens, Deborah Anne Henry and David O’Carroll for methamphetamine offending be admissible at trial;

(b)Portions of the book “The Devil’s Dandruff” to be led at trial; and

(c)A direction that the convictions of Peter Shaw may be led at trial as conclusive proof that he committed those offences.

Background

The Crown’s narrative

Operation Illusion and Operation Genoa

[2] In August 2002 the Police terminated Operation Illusion. The investigation involved the manufacture of methamphetamine by Mr Cavanagh, Mr O’Carroll, Ms Stevens and Ms Henry. As a result they were charged and convicted of methamphetamine related charges. They were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Mr Cavanagh was the last to receive parole on 17 May 2010.

[3] In 2013, a fresh investigation was commenced, Operation Genoa, centred on allegations that Mr Cavanagh, Ms Stevens, Mr O’Carroll and Mr Bowker were involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine and that Victoria Cavanagh, Ms Henry and Mr Ryan were assisting them by laundering money. The 47 charges in these proceedings are the product of Operation Genoa.

[4] The primary charges allege the manufacture of methamphetamine. Given their significance to the present applications, the Crown’s narrative of the offending is repeated here.

Charge 2 – Cavanagh, Stevens and Cavanagh

[5] The central allegation is that despite having no known source of income Mr Cavanagh and Victoria Cavanagh amassed cash and other assets in excess of
$3,000,000 in less than four years. Ms Stevens is also said to have acquired significant cash and other assets in excess of $200,000.

[6] During this period, Mr Shaw was Ms Stevens’ partner and her assistant, helping her and Mr Cavanagh with the manufacture of methamphetamine.

[7] Based on their accumulated unexplained wealth, the quantities of manufactured methamphetamine are assessed at well into the multiple kilograms.

Charge 12 – Stevens, Shaw, O’Carroll

[8] The Crown alleges that in early March 2014 Ms Stevens and…

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 Cavanagh

Details

AGLC: R v Cavanagh [2015] NZHC 1394
Case: [2015] NZHC 1394
Decision Date: 19 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an application by the Crown to admit prior convictions, extracts from a book authored by one of the defendants, and the convictions of a co-accused as evidence in the trial of four defendants charged with methamphetamine-related offences. The Crown sought to adduce the prior convictions of the four defendants to show a propensity to manufacture methamphetamine. The defendants argued that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudicial effect. The Crown also sought to adduce extracts from a book written by one of the defendants, entitled "The Devil’s Dandruff". The Crown submitted that it was relevant because it showed that the defendant knew more money was made from the manufacture of methamphetamine. The defendants submitted that its probative value was weak and its prejudicial effect significant. Finally, the Crown sought to adduce the convictions of a co-accused, Mr Shaw, as conclusive proof that he committed the offences. The defendants submitted that the convictions were unfairly prejudicial because they would deprive the defendants of the capacity to deny the fact of the manufacture of methamphetamine at the relevant times. The court held that the prior convictions were inadmissible because they did not go beyond showing a tendency to commit offences of the kind alleged and there was no broader narrative to show a tendency to engage in the specific act of manufacture. The court held that the book "The Devil’s Dandruff" was inadmissible because its prejudicial effect was obviously significant and there was a risk of improper jury reasoning. The court held that the convictions of Mr Shaw were admissible because the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.

Orders