R v Greer - [2014] NZHC 358

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-035-991 [2014] NZHC 358

THE QUEEN

v

ALLAN IVO GREER

Hearing: 21 February 2014

Counsel: I R Murray for Crown
Defendant in person (with H Blackmore as McKenzie friend) B S Yeoman as Amicus

Judgment: 4 March 2014

JUDGMENT OF MACKENZIE J

I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is
11 am on the 4th day of March 2014.

Solicitors: Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington, for the Crown.
B S Yeoman Limited, Lower Hutt.

Copy to: Mr Greer

R v GREER [2014] NZHC 358 [4 March 2014]

[1] The defendant1 faces a trial in this Court commencing on 28 April 2014 on an indictment charging two counts of supplying a Class A drug, one count of supplying a Class C drug, one count of sexual violation by rape, four counts of threatening to kill, two counts of aggravated burglary and one count of possession of an offensive weapon.

[2] There are two pre-trial applications before the Court:

(a) An application by the Crown under ss 95 and 103 of the Evidence Act 2006 (the Act) in respect of the evidence of S, the complainant in respect of some counts in the indictment; and

(b) An application by the defendant for discharge.

[3] I deal first with the Crown’s application. The first order sought is an order under s 95(2) of the Act that the defendant, who is representing himself, must not personally cross-examine S. It is proposed, in terms of s 95(5)(b) that Mr Yeoman should conduct the cross-examination. Mr Yeoman has already been appointed for that purpose in respect of another witness, [P], under s 95(1).

[4] The grounds on which an order may be made are set in s 95(3). Mr Murray’s submission is that the relative youth of the witness, coupled with her mental health problems and her fear of seeing and being questioned by the defendant, satisfy those provisions.

[5] In support of the application, the Crown has produced a report from a clinical psychologist, Dr Christianson. She was required by the defendant for cross- examination, and I heard oral evidence from her.

[6] Dr Christianson carried out both a psychological assessment and a cognitive assessment of S. The Beck Depression Inventory indicated that symptoms of depression were severe. The Beck Anxiety Inventory indicated a severe level of
anxiety. Those are both self-report tests. Under the DSM-IV criteria for post

1 I use the new term, defendant, though this prosecution is subject to the previous regime.

traumatic stress disorder, S reported the alleged offending with which the defendant is charged and described re-experiencing that event with flashbacks. S described symptoms of agitation which have persisted over the course of the last year and which have had a significant impact on her life, in that she has found it difficult to move outside of her home.

[7] In summary, Dr Christianson says that the psychological assessment indicates that S experiences severe levels of both anxiety and depression…

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 Greer

Details

AGLC: R v Greer [2014] NZHC 358
Case: [2014] NZHC 358
Decision Date: 4 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Greer involved a defendant facing a trial for various serious offences, including drug supply, sexual violation, and threats to kill. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with addressing two pre-trial applications: one by the Crown to prevent the defendant from cross-examining a particular witness, and another by the defendant for discharge due to alleged inadequate preparation facilities.

The Crown's application sought to prevent the defendant from personally cross-examining the complainant, S, citing her youth, mental health issues, and fear of the defendant. The Crown presented a clinical psychologist's report indicating severe anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder in S, along with cognitive impairments. Despite these findings, the court found insufficient grounds to restrict the defendant's right to cross-examine, emphasizing the importance of fair trial rights and the potential for managing any distress during the trial itself.

The defendant's application for discharge was based on claims of inadequate facilities to prepare his defence while in custody. The court reviewed the submissions and evidence, noting the defendant's long-standing complaints about restricted access to computers and other materials necessary for legal preparation. The court concluded that the prison's stance effectively denied the defendant realistic access to these facilities, thereby compromising his right to a fair trial. The court planned to reconsider the bail application to address these concerns adequately.

The court's reasoning highlighted the delicate balance between protecting the rights of the defendant and the welfare of the witness, as well as the defendant's right to a fair trial. The refusal of both applications underscored the court's commitment to these principles while urging a reevaluation of the defendant's bail conditions to facilitate his legal preparation.

Orders