R v Sullivan

Case [2013] NZHC 1982


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI 2011-076-1948 [2013] NZHC 1982

THE QUEEN

v

EDWARD ORAL SULLIVAN ROBERT ALEXANDER WHITE LACHIE JOHN MCLEOD and TERRENCE WILLIAM HUTTON

Hearing:                   6 August 2013

Counsel:                  C R Carruthers QC, N F Flanagan and P Gardyne for Crown

K H Cook for Mr Sullivan
R B Squire QC for Mr White

S P Rennie and E J Bailey for Mr McLeod

J H M Eaton QC for Mr Hutton

Judgment:                8 August 2013

JUDGMENT (NO. 3) OF HEATH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 August 2013 at 10.30am pursuant to Rule

11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

R v SULLIVAN and ORS [2013] NZHC 1982 [8 August 2013]

[1]      On 6 August 2013, I heard an application by Mr McLeod under s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961.   Mr McLeod sought orders discharging him on the five counts bought against him.

[2]      For reasons to be given later, Mr McLeod’s application is dismissed.

[3]      The result of the application may be published.  When my reasons are issued they will contain an order prohibiting publication of them, pending trial, or earlier

order of the Court.

P R Heath J

Delivered at 10.30am on 8 August 2013

Solicitors:
Serious Fraud Office, PO Box 7124, Wellesley Street, Auckland

Meredith Connell, PO Box 2213, Auckland Gresson Dorman & Co, PO Box 244, Timaru Counsel:

C Carruthers QC, PO Box 350, Wellington
P H B Hall, PO Box 3750, Christchurch
R B Squire QC, PO Box 10157, Wellington

J H M Eaton, PO Box 13868, Armagh, Christchurch

R Raymond PO Box 9344, Tower Junction, Christchurch

Details
AGLC
R v Sullivan [2013] NZHC 1982
Case
[2013] NZHC 1982
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Timaru Registry, presided over by Justice Heath, heard an application by Lachie John McLeod under section 347 of the Crimes Act 1961. The application sought discharge from five counts brought against McLeod in the case of R v Sullivan and others. The other defendants in the case were Edward Oral Sullivan, Robert Alexander White, and Terrence William Hutton.

The legal issue before the court was whether McLeod's application for discharge from the charges against him should be granted. The application was dismissed by the court, and the reasons for the dismissal are set to be given in a later judgment. The court ruled that the result of the application could be published, but the reasons for the decision would be subject to an order prohibiting publication pending trial or an earlier order of the court.

In summary, the High Court of New Zealand dismissed McLeod's application for discharge from the charges against him in the case of R v Sullivan and others. The court's reasons for the dismissal will be published in a later judgment, subject to an order prohibiting publication pending trial or an earlier order of the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.