R v Milligan

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was presented with an appeal by Thomas William Milligan against a decision of Judge Dawson declining his application for a change of venue from the Palmerston North District Court to the Napier District Court. Milligan was committed for trial on charges of sexual violation by way of unlawful sexual connection and aggravated wounding by stupefaction, with the trial scheduled for May 2008. The primary legal issue was whether the appellant could demonstrate a significant risk of an unfair trial due to adverse publicity, which would necessitate a change of venue.

The Court of Appeal examined the legal framework provided by section 322 of the Crimes Act 1961, which allows for a change of venue where it is deemed expedient for the ends of justice. The Court acknowledged that pre-trial publicity could potentially prejudice an accused, but emphasized that the impact of such publicity on juries is typically minimal. The Court noted that a significant lapse of time between the initial publicity and the trial is crucial in determining whether the fairness of the trial has been compromised. In this instance, the Court observed that the last publicity relating to the appellant would be approximately eight months old by the time of the trial, and the more significant publicity from July 2007 would be ten months old. The Court concluded that while the articles were prejudicial, they did not detail the alleged offending in particular, and therefore the appellant did not meet the high threshold required for a change of venue.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of Judge Dawson. The Court emphasized that the threshold for changing the venue is deliberately set high, reflecting the principle that an accused should be tried by their fellow citizens in the community where the alleged offence occurred. The Court ruled that it was not expedient for the ends of justice to change the venue and thus denied the appellant’s application. The Court also issued an order prohibiting the publication of the judgment or the reasons for it in the news media or on the internet until the final disposition of the trial, while permitting publication in law reports or law digests.