Introduction [1] The legislation [7] Background facts [8] Procedural history [15] Submissions for the appellants [18] Submissions for the Crown [25] Issues [34] Verdicts on the other counts [35] The Nicholson decision [40] Was Nicholson correctly decided? [55] In what circumstances should this Court reconsider its decisions? [66]
Position of the English Court of Appeal [67] Position in Australia [74] Position in Canada [79] Position in New Zealand before the creation of the Supreme Court [83] What should the position in New Zealand now be? [92] Should there be a different rule for criminal cases? [102] How would the principles have applied in this case? [107] Is this Court still bound by Privy Council decisions? [111]
Result [115]
Introduction
[1] Ms Archbold and Mr Chilton were tried together in the District Court at Christchurch in relation to alleged benefit fraud spanning the period from June 1994 to November 2000.
[2] Ms Archbold was charged with five specific counts of using a document pursuant to s 229A of the Crimes Act 1961. In addition, she faced two further charges pursuant to s 127 of the Social Security Act 1964 (SSA). The first charge under that section was that she wilfully omitted to tell the Department of Social Welfare that she was living in a relationship in the nature of marriage for the purpose of continuing to receive her benefit. The second charge under s 127 was of omitting to inform the Department of her relationship with Mr Chilton, for the purpose of enabling Mr Chilton to continue to receive a benefit. She was convicted of one of the specific counts under s 229A and also convicted of the two wilful omission charges pursuant to s 127 of the SSA.
[3] Mr Chilton faced two counts of using a document with intent to defraud pursuant to s 229A and a further two counts pursuant to s 127 of the SSA. Those latter two charges effectively mirrored Ms Archbold’s charges. Mr Chilton was convicted on the two s 127 charges.
[4] Ms Archbold and Mr Chilton appeal against their convictions on all counts. With respect to two of the counts under s 127 of the SSA (Counts 8 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 Chilton Ca333/04
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Chilton Ca333/04 [2005] NZCA 295
Case
[2005] NZCA 295
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This appeal involves the convictions of William Shane Chilton and Sarah Elizabeth Archbold on charges of wilful omission in relation to social security benefits. The appellants argue that their convictions on certain counts should be quashed, citing the Court of Appeal decision in Nicholson v Department of Social Welfare. The Crown, however, contends that Nicholson was wrongly decided and that the convictions should stand. The Court of Appeal must decide whether Nicholson should be overruled and, if not, whether the convictions on the other counts are sustainable.
The Court of Appeal first examines the decision in Nicholson and finds that it was correctly decided. The majority held that there was no positive duty to disclose information to the Department, and that the omission to do so did not constitute an offence under the Social Security Act 1964. The Court of Appeal agrees with this reasoning and finds that Nicholson remains good law in New Zealand.
The Court of Appeal then considers whether it should reconsider its decisions in light of the creation of the Supreme Court. It finds that, while some factors that justified the Court's ability to depart from its previous decisions have disappeared, the Court should not adopt a more restrictive approach to overruling its own decisions. The Court of Appeal concludes that its existing approach to stare decisis remains appropriate, taking into account the small size of New Zealand, the influence of developments in the wider common law world and international law, and the limited appeal rights to the Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeal also addresses whether there should be a different rule for criminal cases. It accepts that there may be a mandate for a slightly less restrictive approach in criminal cases, particularly where the liberty of the subject or fair trial rights are at stake. However, this case does not meet the tests for overruling previous decisions, as Nicholson was carefully reasoned and there have been no relevant developments in other jurisdictions. Furthermore, overruling Nicholson would have breached the prohibition on retrospective criminal liability.
Finally, the Court of Appeal considers whether it is still bound by decisions of the Privy Council. It finds that it is bound by existing Privy Council decisions made in respect of appeals from New Zealand, unless and until the Supreme Court overrules them. The status of Privy Council decisions on appeals from other jurisdictions is less clear.
The appeal is allowed in part, with the convictions on Counts 8 and 10 being quashed. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.