R v Lloyd-Jones - [2024] NZHC 2085

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2021-096-002711

[2024] NZHC 2085

R

v

PAUL BARKER LLOYD-JONES

Hearing: 22 July 2024

Appearances:

S A H Bishop and S T Hartley for the Crown P V C Paino for Paul Lloyd-Jones

Judgment:

30 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Application for costs)

Introduction

[1] On 21 November 2023, Mr Lloyd-Jones was acquitted in a majority verdict following a three-and-a-half week trial. He and three co-defendants faced manslaughter charges relating to an incident which took place on 4 September 2019 outside a bar owned by Mr Lloyd-Jones. All the defendants were acquitted on the charge; three were found not guilty by a majority.

[2] Mr Lloyd-Jones now seeks costs under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (the CCCA). He seeks costs in excess of the scale costs in the Costs in Criminal Cases Regulations 1987 (the Regulations). He contends that the police ought not to have charged him and that the prosecution was brought and conducted unreasonably in

R v LLOYD-JONES (COSTS) [2024] NZHC 2085 [30 July 2024]

several respects. The Crown opposes costs on the basis that Mr Lloyd-Jones has not pointed to any relevant circumstances that justify an award under the CCCA.

Background

[3] At the time of the incident Mr Lloyd-Jones was the owner of a bar in Upper Hutt.

[4] At around 10.30 am on 4 September 2019, the deceased went into the bar. He was behaving strangely. The deceased remained there until approximately 4.15 pm, at which point his behaviour became disruptive and the police were called. Police removed the deceased from the bar and took him home. He was served with a trespass notice and told not to return to the bar.

[5] At approximately 5.48 pm, the deceased returned to the bar in contravention of the trespass notice. He was asked to leave by staff but refused, at which point he was advised that the police had been called. An altercation then developed near the door to the bar. Some of the defendants (including Mr Lloyd-Jones) were involved in physically removing the deceased from the bar. All the defendants then restrained the deceased on the pavement while awaiting the arrival of the police.

[6] Mr Lloyd-Jones’ role in the events started when he was called to the bar due to the disruption caused by deceased, shortly before the altercation took place. He was called by one of his daughters who worked in the bar, and was already aware of the deceased being trespassed as he had been at the bar earlier that day to run some errands. Mr Lloyd-Jones arrived at the bar and started exchanging words with the deceased. He was then part of the group of defendants who pushed the deceased out of the bar and held the deceased down until the police arrived. Mr Lloyd-Jones knelt next to the deceased holding his shoulders down.1

[7] The deceased was restrained by 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 Lloyd-Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Lloyd-Jones [2024] NZHC 2085
Case: [2024] NZHC 2085
Decision Date: 30 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Mr Paul Barker Lloyd-Jones, sought costs under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (CCCA) following his acquittal of manslaughter charges in relation to an incident outside his bar in 2019. The court was required to decide whether the circumstances justified an award of costs in excess of the scale costs under the CCCA. The key issues included whether the prosecution acted in good faith, had sufficient evidence, took proper investigative steps, and conducted the investigation reasonably, as well as Mr Lloyd-Jones' cooperation and the impact of any delays.

The court found that the prosecution acted in good faith and had sufficient evidence to support the charge. While there were delays in bringing the charges, these were not unreasonable given the complexity of the case and the public interest in ensuring a careful investigation. Mr Lloyd-Jones' cooperation and the prosecution's handling of disclosure were also considered. Ultimately, the court concluded that there was no sufficient basis for awarding costs under the CCCA, as the prosecution's actions were reasonable, and the delay did not prejudice Mr Lloyd-Jones. The application for costs was dismissed.

Orders