R v Morgan CA261/04

In the appeal case of R v Morgan, the appellant, Thomas Wiremu Morgan, was convicted on three counts of offending, arising from a single incident of stabbing a complainant. Count 1 involved wounding the complainant with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, Count 2 involved assault with a weapon, and Count 3 involved possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. The appellant's counsel applied to treat Counts 1 and 2 as alternative charges, but this was not accepted by the trial Judge. The appellant was convicted on all counts and sentenced to a total of six and a half years imprisonment, with all terms to be served concurrently.

The legal issue before the Court was whether Count 2 should have been left to the jury as an independent charge, or whether it should have been treated as an alternative to Count 1. The Court considered the principle of double jeopardy, which prohibits an individual from being punished twice for the same offence. The Court found that Count 2 was a less serious form of Count 1 and that allowing it to stand as an independent charge would infringe the principle of double jeopardy.

The Court found that the single act of stabbing the complainant constituted the factual basis for both Counts 1 and 2, and that Count 2 was simply a less serious form of Count 1. The Court held that the principle of double jeopardy was infringed by leaving Count 2 as an independent charge. The Court also noted that there was no policy or other reason to justify the retention of Count 2 as an independent rather than an alternative count.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction on Count 2 and the two-year sentence imposed upon it. The convictions on Counts 1 and 3, and their concurrent sentences, will stand. The case highlights the importance of adhering to the principle of double jeopardy in criminal proceedings, and the need to carefully consider the nature of charges in order to avoid potential infringements of this principle.