R v P HC Napier CRI-2005-020-1621

[2007] NZHC 1563

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2005-020-1621

QUEEN

v

P

Hearing:         16 January 2007

Appearances: Mr C R Walker for the Crown

Mr A J S Snell for the Accused

Judgment:      16 January 2007

ORAL RULING OF JUDGE A J ADEANE

[1]      Three submissions for the accused in reverse order.  The need to spell out in even more explicit terms in Summing Up, the need for the defendant to have knowledge of the presence of the drugs in the house.   In my view, the standard directions which have been given concerning possession deal quite adequately with that point.

[2]      Secondly, the suggestion that the submission that in Summing Up I have used the term “all” defendant’s mail being sent to the suspect address at Abroath Avenue, I am not able to say now without returning to the transcript whether or not that word was added, the word “all” was added before the term mail, but the jury will be in no

doubt about what the evidence was on the point  and I do not  wish to  alter the

R V   P  HC NAP CRI-2005-020-1621  16 January 2007

emphasis of the Summing Up or to risk drawing the jury away from the real issues by bringing them back to discuss that point.

[3]      Primarily,  however,  Mr  Snell’s  submission  was  that  at  one  point  in  the Summing  Up  I  may have  made  reference  to  Mr  P  ,  by giving  evidence, erasing reasonable doubts, thereby suggesting that he had some sort of onus in this case.  Clearly he does not.  I cannot now recall, without returning to my notes, how often this jury was instructed that proof of possession  is on the Crown beyond reasonable doubt, but it was done repeatedly and with such frequency that, in my view, looking at the Summing Up as a whole, there could be no question of the jury being misled in any way about where the onus of proof lies on the pivotal issue in this trial.

Judge A J Adeane