R v Giles

[2014] NZHC 1089

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-004-4424 [2014] NZHC 1089

THE QUEEN

v

JASMINE GILES

Hearing:	21 May 2014
Appearances:	AJ Pollett for Crown R Mansfield for Accused
Judgment:	21 May 2014

REASONS JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 May 2014 at 4:30 pm

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

R v GILES [2014] NZHC 1089 [21 May 2014]

[1]      Jasmine  Giles  faces  trial  in  this  Court  on  two  counts  in  an  indictment comprising  54  counts  in  total.    It  is  said  that  between  1  November  2012  and

28 November 2012  at  Auckland  she  conspired  with  Zebulin  Mario  Davoren  to pervert the course of justice.  It is alleged that the accused conspired to prevent the Official Assignee from restraining Mr Davoren’s vehicles and being released from custody  on  bail  under  false  pretences.    Ms  Giles  is  also  charged,  again  with Mr Davoren, that on or about 1 November 2012 at Auckland they had in their possession the Class C controlled drug cannabis for the purpose of sale to another person.

[2]      Under s 340(3) of the Crimes Act 1961, Ms Giles applied for severance of her trial from that of a dozen or more other accused named in the other counts in the indictment,  on  the  grounds  that  the  allegations  against  her  can  be  dealt  with discretely and that it would be oppressive for her to have to participate in a trial which is currently scheduled to last eight weeks.

[3]      There being no objection to the application by the Crown, I delivered an oral judgment  at  the  hearing  of  this  matter  this  morning,  granting  the  severance application and directing that the matter be called in the criminal callover at 9:00 am on 11 June 2014.

[4]      Regrettably, the Court’s recording system did not record the judgment.  These are my reasons for making the severance order.

[5]      The allegations against Ms Giles relate to events which occurred at the time of the termination of a major Police operation  leading to the apprehension and prosecution  of  a  number  of  accused  said  to  have  been  involved  in  a  criminal enterprise concerning the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine, the supply of pseudoephedrine and other related drug offending.  It is not alleged that Ms Giles participated in that activity which is said to have occurred over a period of some

15 months between 29 August 2011 and 28 November 2012.

[6]      I was satisfied that Ms Pollett for the Crown was correct to concede that it would be oppressive to require Ms Giles to stand trial with the other accused and that

the case against her can conveniently be heard separately without imposing an undue burden on the administration of justice.   I considered it conducive to the ends of justice, therefore, to make an order under s 340(3) of the Crimes Act 1961 directing that Ms Giles should be tried separately on counts 57 and 58 in the indictment.

[7]      I understand that such a trial is likely to take place in the District Court.  The matter was set down to be called in the criminal callover list at 9:00 am on Wednesday, 11 June 2014.  Ms Giles’s attendance was excused.

…………………………………

Toogood J