R v Langley - [2014] NZHC 2484

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 HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-019-000611 [2014] NZHC 2484

THE QUEEN

v

PAORA CRAIG LANGLEY

Hearing: 7 October 2014

Counsel:

R G Douch for the Crown
E P Leary for the Defendant

Judgment:

9 October 2014

JUDGMENT OF BROWN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 October 2014 at 4 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
Counsel: E Leary, Auckland

R v LANGLEY [2014] NZHC 2484 [9 October 2014]

[1] The defendant is charged with a single count of murder of Sedrick Tiatia (the deceased) on 4 February 2014. The trial is scheduled to commence on 10 November
2014 in Hamilton. This judgment concerns the defendant’s application for directions

for the admission of hearsay and propensity evidence.

[2] In his memorandum dated 9 September 2014 Mr Leary for the defendant records an undertaking to the Court that the defence is one of self-defence pursuant to s 48 of the Crimes Act 1961. He advises that his opening statement will include a clear articulation to the jury that the defendant will give evidence as to self-defence.

[3] At the request of counsel for the defendant, which was not opposed by

Mr Douch, I made a direction that the hearing would be conducted in chambers. [4] The hearsay evidence proposed to be led was in three categories:
(a) Telecommunication intercepts;

(b)Job sheet and notebook entries of Detective Constable Le Pou said to indicate the deceased’s predilection and addiction to methamphetamine; and

(c) Detective Little’s job sheet reference to “The Mob”.

[5] The proposed propensity evidence also comprised three categories:1

(a) The deceased’s conviction history;

(b) The fact that the deceased was an active member of the Mongrel Mob;

and

(c) The deceased’s methamphetamine addiction together with expert evidence regarding the use and effects of methamphetamine.

Hearsay

[6] At the outset Mr Douch advised that the prosecution would be leading evidence of the telecommunication intercepts. Accordingly no ruling was required on that material.

[7] In respect of the two job sheet entries, the grounds on which the application was made were:

(a) The evidence was relevant to the determination of the proceeding: s 7;

(b)The probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect: s 8;

(c) The hearsay statements were contained in a business record: s 19;

(d)It would cause undue expense and delay if the person was required to be a witness: s 18(1)(b)(ii); and

(e) It was in the interests of justice as the hearsay statements were an important part of the background and context leading up to the alleged offence.

[8] Mr Leary emphasised that the two items were important for reinforcing the “fear factor” which was relevant to the analysis of “the…

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 Langley

Details

AGLC: R v Langley [2014] NZHC 2484
Case: [2014] NZHC 2484
Decision Date: 9 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with ruling on the admissibility of certain evidence in the case of R v Langley, where the defendant is charged with the murder of Sedrick Tiatia. The case involved several legal issues concerning the admission of hearsay and propensity evidence. The court had to decide whether certain statements and evidence proposed by the defense were admissible under the Evidence Act 2006.

Regarding hearsay evidence, the court was asked to consider the admissibility of telecommunication intercepts, job sheet and notebook entries of a detective, and a reference to "The Mob" in another detective's job sheet. The defense argued that these statements were relevant, had probative value, and were contained in business records. However, the prosecution opposed the admission of these statements, arguing that the declarants were available to testify and that the conditions for hearsay exceptions were not met. The court ultimately decided that the statements could not be admitted as hearsay evidence.

As for propensity evidence, the court was required to assess whether evidence regarding the deceased's conviction history, his membership in the Mongrel Mob, and his methamphetamine addiction could be admitted. The defense argued that this evidence was relevant to the defendant's self-defense claim. However, the prosecution countered that this evidence did not have the necessary specificity to be considered propensity evidence under the Act. The court found that none of the proposed propensity evidence satisfied the requirements for admissibility.

In conclusion, the court declined to admit the proposed hearsay and propensity evidence in the case of R v Langley. The trial is scheduled to commence on 10 November 2014 in Hamilton. The court did not make a ruling on the objections to the jury booklets and requested the prosecution to address these issues before giving any directions.

Orders