R v Woods - [2019] NZHC 122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2018-085-000433

[2019] NZHC 122

THE QUEEN

v

PADDY JONATHAN WOODS

Hearing: 12 February 2019

Counsel:

S C Carter and A R van Echten for Crown K F Preston and D A Ewen for Defendant

Judgment:

12 February 2019 at 12 noon

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

[Application (No. 2) under s 147 Criminal Procedure Act 2011]

Introduction

[1] Mr Woods is charged with murdering Zenith (Zena) Campbell on 11 February 2018.

[2] On 8 October 2018, Mr Woods applied to have the charge dismissed pursuant to s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act). Section 147 of the Act sets out the jurisdiction of the Court to dismiss a charge. The Court must be satisfied that, as a matter of law, a properly directed jury could not reasonably convict the defendant. I

R v WOODS [2019] NZHC 122 [12 February 2019]

dismissed that application on 23 November 2018 because, at the time, the evidence satisfied me that the test for dismissing the charge had not been satisfied.1

[3] In issuing my judgment, I observed that my decision did not prevent a further application being made under s 147 “should the evidence change in any material respect”.2

[4] Since my decision of 23 November 2018, the defence has disclosed to the Crown witness statements from two experts, Dr Kolar, a forensic pathologist and Ms Tarrant-Wooding, a forensic toxicologist. Upon receiving Dr Kolar’s report, Dr Spark, a forensic pathologist, who is to be a key Crown witness, reviewed her earlier evidence. Dr Spark’s opinion about the cause of death of Ms Campbell has evolved so that now she is more firmly of the view that there is considerable uncertainty about whether Mr Woods caused Ms Campbell’s death.

[5] Upon receiving Dr Spark’s revised opinion, the Crown properly acknowledged that the new evidence constituted a material change from when I delivered my first s 147 judgment and that it would be appropriate for the Court to consider a further s 147 application. The Crown, responsibly, now makes no submissions in opposition to granting the s 147 application. My reasons for now granting the application are explained in the following paragraphs.

Background

[6] At about 12.30 pm on Sunday 11 February 2018, Ms Campbell was reported dead by her boyfriend, Mr Woods. Mr Woods said that he and Ms Campbell had fallen asleep in his vehicle in the early hours of 11 February 2018. He said that when he woke up at about 12.30 pm he was in the driver’s seat, in a reclined position and that Ms Campbell was partially draped over him but was mainly positioned in the front passenger seat and footrest area of the vehicle.

[7] The key post-mortem findings, made by Dr Spark, may be summarised in the following way:

1 R v Woods [2018] NZHC 3061.
2 At [30].

(1)Bruising to Ms Campbell’s neck and a fracture of…

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 Woods

Details

AGLC: R v Woods [2019] NZHC 122
Case: [2019] NZHC 122
Decision Date: 12 February 2019 at 12 noon

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Woods involved a charge of murder against the defendant, Paddy Jonathan Woods, for the death of Zenith (Zena) Campbell. Woods applied for the charge to be dismissed under section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which allows the court to dismiss a charge if it is satisfied that, as a matter of law, a properly directed jury could not reasonably convict the defendant. The Crown initially opposed the application, but later withdrew its opposition upon the disclosure of new expert evidence. The court was required to decide whether the evidence supported the dismissal of the charge.

The court considered the new evidence provided by two experts, Dr Kolar and Ms Tarrant-Wooding, which led Dr Spark, a forensic pathologist, to revise her opinion about the cause of death. Dr Spark now believed that there was considerable uncertainty about whether Woods caused Campbell’s death, as the manual strangulation, if it occurred, was not severe or prolonged enough to be considered a substantial and operative cause of death. The court noted that the evidence indicated that any compression of Campbell’s neck before her death could not be said to be a substantial and operative cause of her death, due to the presence of a potentially fatal combination of drugs and alcohol in her system. The court concluded that asking the jury to find that Woods’ actions were a substantial and operative cause of Campbell’s death would amount to asking them to speculate about the cause of death. Therefore, the court found that a properly directed jury could not reasonably be satisfied that Woods’ actions were sufficient to be a substantial and operative cause of her death.

As a result, the court granted the application under section 147 of the Act and discharged Woods. The court emphasized that it was not for the judge to predict what the jury would find, but rather to determine if the evidence, if accepted, was sufficient to prove the case. In this instance, the court found that the evidence did not meet the required standard of proof to support a conviction. The final order of the court was the discharge of Woods pursuant to section 147 of the Act.

Orders