R v Signal

[2022] NZHC 220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2019-054-3419

[2022] NZHC 220

THE QUEEN

v

JASON SIGNAL

Hearing:

11 February 2022 via VMR

Appearances:

D Davies and J Harvey for Crown via VMR

C Hirschfield and Ms Thompson for Signal via VMR

Oral Judgment:

11 February 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1]                 Jason Signal applies for dismissal of two charges of kidnapping under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act).

[2]                 Mr Signal was one of five defendants tried last year in relation to a fatal gang attack on two victims in Palmerston North. The jury reached verdicts for three of the defendants but were undecided as to Mr Signal. He faces retrial in September 2022 on charges of manslaughter, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, participation in an organised criminal group and kidnapping.

[3]                 Mr Signal currently applies for a dismissal of the kidnapping charges under   s 147(4)(c) of the Act, on the basis that no properly directed jury could reasonably convict him on these charges.

R v SIGNAL [2022] NZHC 220 [11 February 2022]

[4]                 The Crown case advanced during the first trial was that the five defendants together had a common plan to inflict serious violence with weapons to punish and de-patch Codi Wilkinson and Kyle Rowe for their role in an unauthorised robbery on Mr X, a long-time friend of the President of the Mongrel Mob. They say that it was part of that plan for Codi and Kyle to be taken involuntarily to Mr X’s home following the attack to show him that they had been dealt to.

[5]Mr Signal was not one of the defendants involved in taking the victims to Mr

X. However, the Crown allege that, as one of the members of the group, he knew that this was an element of the common plan and that he was liable as a party to the kidnapping.

[6]                 Counsel for Mr Signal, Mr Hirschfield submits that the Crown case on the kidnapping counts is speculative. He was not involved in the kidnapping himself and there is nothing evidentially that suggests knowledge on his part prior to the commencement of the plan.

[7]  Mr Hirschfield highlights that the Crown views Mr Signal’s role in the offending as peripheral, noting in their closing in relation to Mr Signal that “there [were] other roles here other than violence, to locate to contain and to deal with witnesses”. Mr Hirschfield also refers to the evidence of Krystal Hewitt in which she described Mr Signal as a “bystander”, suggesting a more passive role in the plan. When looked at in the round, he submits, given his lesser degree of involvement, a jury could only guess and not reasonably infer that Mr Signal knew that kidnapping was part of the plan.

[8]                 In response to Mr Signal’s application, the Crown have provided a memorandum informing the Court that it purports to offer no evidence on the charges of kidnapping against Mr Signal.

[9]Section 147(4) of the Act provides that:

(4)Without limiting subsection (1), the court may dismiss a charge if—

(a)    the prosecutor has not offered evidence at trial; or

(b)    in relation to a charge for which the trial procedure is the Judge-

alone procedure, the court is satisfied that there is no case to answer; or

(c)    in relation to a charge to be tried, or being tried, by a jury, the Judge is satisfied that, as a matter of law, a properly directed jury could not reasonably convict the defendant.

[10]              If the Crown purports to offer no evidence on the kidnapping charges, I am satisfied that no properly directed jury could reasonably convict Mr Signal on these charges.

[11]              Section 147(5) provides that a decision to dismiss a charge must be given in open Court. Accordingly, I dismiss the two charges of kidnapping faced by Mr Signal.

Cull J

Solicitors:
Crown Prosecutor, Palmerston North