A prisoner escapes [1] Issues on the appeal [10] Should Mr Taylor’s pleas of previous acquittal have been accepted? [25] What was the effect, if any, of the judge’s failure to deal with the “previous acquittal” dispute at the start of the trial? [60] Did count 1 (the escape count) disclose a crime? [65] Who did determine and who should have determined whether Mr Taylor was “in lawful custody” at the time of the car park incident? [72] Was Mr Taylor “in lawful custody” at the time of the car park incident? [78] Were the verdicts inconsistent? [83] Did the fact that the sentencing took place in a different city from the trial have any legal effect? [95] Was Mr Taylor’s sentence too high compared with Mr Royal’s? [105]
A prisoner escapes
[1] In early 2005, Child, Youth & Family Services became involved in the care arrangements of the young son of Arthur Taylor, the appellant, and a former partner of his. Mr Taylor at the time was a serving prisoner. The service scheduled a family group conference for 22 March 2005 in Wellington. Attendance at the conference was not compulsory and for that reason no order to produce Mr Taylor was issued under s 26 of the Penal Institutions Act 1954.
[2] Mr Taylor indicated a wish to attend the conference, which the prison authorities respected. Three prison guards accompanied Mr Taylor to the conference; Mr Taylor was handcuffed to one of them. When the quartet reached the basement garage of the Wellington central city building where the conference was to take place, they were greeted by one Manu Royal armed with an air pistol. The prison guards believed it was a pistol capable of firing bullets and either injuring or killing them. Messrs Taylor and Royal forced one of the guards to unlock the handcuffs. They then handcuffed two of the prison guards together.
[3] Messrs Taylor and Royal then escaped. The police caught them a short time later.
[4] The Crown subsequently filed an indictment against Mr Taylor containing eight counts. There were three counts of aggravated wounding under s 191(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961: one count relating to each prison guard. There were three counts of kidnapping under s 209(1)(b) of the Crimes Act: again, one count for each prison guard. There was one count of having an airgun with intent to commit an offence, contrary to s 55 of the Arms Act 1978: it was the…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading R v Taylor
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Taylor [2008] NZCA 558
Case
[2008] NZCA 558
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of R v Taylor involved an appeal against convictions and sentence by Arthur William Taylor, who was found guilty of escaping from lawful custody and other related charges. The appeal raised several issues, including whether the pleas of previous acquittal should have been accepted, the legality of the escape charge, and the consistency of the verdicts. The court unanimously dismissed all issues except for the first, where there was a division of opinion on whether the pleas of previous acquittal should have been accepted. The court concluded that the judge was correct in not accepting the pleas of previous acquittal, as the requirements of the relevant statute were not fulfilled. The court also addressed other issues, such as the legality of the escape charge, the consistency of the verdicts, and the sentence appeal. The appeal against the convictions was dismissed, and the appeal against the sentence was also dismissed.