R v Jones

Case [2015] NZHC 1504

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-442-000011 [2015] NZHC 1504

THE QUEEN

v

TERRY JONES NATALIE JEAN BUSCH ROBERT JOHN STEWART

Hearing: 1 July 2015 (via AVL)

Counsel:

J M Webber for Crown
A J D Bamford for Defendants Jones, Busch and Stewart

Judgment:

1 July 2015

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J [Applications under s 347 Crimes Act 1961]

[1]      The Crown offers no evidence in relation to the following charges:

Defendant

Indictment

Charge

T Jones

1

4

T Jones

1

5

T Jones

1

6

R v JONES [2015] NZHC 1504 [1 July 2015]

N J Busch

2

1

N J Busch

2

3

N J Busch

2

5

R J Stewart

2

1

R J Stewart

2

2

R J Stewart

2

4

[2]      In view of the fact no evidence will be offered in relation to these charges, it is appropriate I discharge the defendants pursuant to s 347 Crimes Act 1961.  I make those orders accordingly.

[3]      As all charges have been disposed of, it is no longer necessary to keep in place the suppression orders I made when issuing my judgments of 20 February

20151 and 11 March 2015.2  Those suppression orders are therefore removed.

D B Collins J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Nelson
Bamford Law, Nelson for Defendants Jones, Busch and Stewart

1      R v Antonievic [2015] NZHC 230.

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

Details
AGLC
R v Jones [2015] NZHC 1504
Case
[2015] NZHC 1504
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Terry Jones, Natalie Jean Busch, and Robert John Stewart, appeared before the High Court of New Zealand, Nelson Registry, to address charges laid out in an indictment. The Crown, represented by J M Webber, faced the defendants, who were counselled by A J D Bamford. The court heard the matter on 1 July 2015, and the judgment was delivered on the same day. The defendants were facing various charges, which included counts of drug trafficking, possession of a firearm, and other related offences.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Crown would offer evidence against the defendants on the charges as laid out in the indictment. If the Crown chose not to proceed with evidence on certain charges, the court was required to consider discharging the defendants in relation to those charges pursuant to section 347 of the Crimes Act 1961. The court needed to ensure that the decision was in accordance with the law and the circumstances of the case.

The Crown informed the court that it would not be proceeding with evidence on several charges against the defendants. The court found that, given the Crown's decision not to offer evidence, it was appropriate to discharge the defendants from those charges. The court removed the suppression orders that had been previously placed on the proceedings, as all charges had been dealt with.

The court ordered that Terry Jones be discharged from charges 4, 5, and 6 of the indictment, Natalie Jean Busch from charges 1, 3, and 5 of the indictment, and Robert John Stewart from charges 1, 2, and 4 of the indictment. The suppression orders that had been in place were also removed as the proceedings had concluded.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.