R v Morley

The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, with the appellant Vaughan Wayne Morley appealing against his convictions. The appellant was convicted on four counts of causing loss by deception, contrary to the Crimes Act 1961. The essential allegation by the Crown was that the appellant agreed to buy a series of properties knowing he did not have the means to complete the purchases, resulting in losses for the vendors. The appeal raised issues concerning the adequacy of legal representation, the lack of particulars provided by the Crown, the late disclosure of documents, and the admissibility of similar fact evidence.

The court found that the appellant was entitled to legal aid and should have been legally represented. The absence of legal representation significantly disadvantaged the appellant, particularly in terms of his ability to effectively present his case, challenge the particulars provided by the Crown, and counter the similar fact evidence. The court concluded that there was a real risk of a miscarriage of justice in the circumstances of this case, and therefore quashed the convictions on all four counts and ordered a retrial.

The court's reasoning was based on the fact that the appellant's lack of legal representation led to significant disadvantages, including the absence of explicit particulars of the deceptive words or conduct relied upon in respect of each count, the late disclosure of over 550 pages of written material to the appellant before the trial, and the admissibility of similar fact evidence. The court also noted that the appellant's inability to effectively present his case and call a witness who could have assisted him further contributed to the risk of a miscarriage of justice.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and ordered a new trial. The reasons for judgment were not to be published in the news media or on the internet or in any other publicly accessible database until final disposition of the new trial, but publication in a law report or a law digest was permitted.