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 WhiteS 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, AucklandMeredith 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, WellingtonJ H M Eaton, PO Box 13868, Armagh, Christchurch
R Raymond PO Box 9344, Tower Junction, Christchurch
- AGLC
- R v Sullivan [2013] NZHC 1982
- Case
- [2013] NZHC 1982
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.