R v X

Case [2009] NZCA 531 13 November 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST
PERMITTED.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA553/2009 [2009] NZCA 531

THE QUEEN

v

X (CA553/2009)

Hearing: 14 October 2009
Court: Hammond, Ronald Young and Fogarty JJ Counsel: C D Savage for Appellant
C L Mander and M J Inwood for Crown

Judgment: 13 November 2009 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is granted. B The appeal is dismissed.
C Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the

proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or

R V X (CA553/2009) CA CA553/2009 [13 November 2009]

other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.

REASONS

Hammond and Fogarty JJ [1] Ronald Young J (dissenting) [92]

HAMMOND AND FOGARTY JJ

(Given by Hammond J)

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction [1] Background [5] The s 344A application [18] The legislation

The scheme of the Evidence Act 2006 [21]

Section 69 [28] The issues in this case [31] Was the “information” confidential?

Confidentiality in general [32]

Was the information confidential in this case? [49] The public interest in disclosure [62] The general law [63] Section 69 [66] Conclusion [89]

Introduction

[1] X, a soldier, is facing charges of attempting to murder a fellow soldier (V) and burglary. This appeal is concerned with the admissibility of critical evidence on the attempted murder charge.

[2] French J ruled as admissible in X’s forthcoming trial certain evidence of admissions made by X to two psychiatric nurses during a mental health assessment,

and related portions of a subsequent police interview: HC CHCH CRI-2008-076-

001397 13 August 2009.

[3] X has applied for leave to appeal against the Judge’s rulings. The Crown does not oppose such leave. The application clearly comes within the criteria for granting leave set out by this Court in R v Leonard [2008] 2 NZLR 218 (CA). The outcome of the application will make a significant difference to the course of X’s trial; indeed, it will likely be determinative of it. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted.

[4] There are two issues before us. The first is whether the Judge was correct to rule that the relevant information was not confidential. A second issue – if the information was confidential – is whether the Judge properly exercised her discretion under s 69 of the Evidence Act 2006 in directing that the public interest in the disclosure of the information outweighed the public interest in preventing harm to the relationship between X and the two psychiatric nurses. While this is not the first time this Court has been asked to consider the application of s 69 (see R v…

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 X

Details

AGLC: R v X [2009] NZCA 531
Case: [2009] NZCA 531
Decision Date: 13 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

- Parties, Dispute, and Court:
X is facing charges of attempting to murder a fellow soldier (V) and burglary. The appeal is against a ruling by French J that certain evidence, including admissions made by X to two psychiatric nurses, is admissible in X’s trial. The appeal was heard by Hammond, Ronald Young, and Fogarty JJ in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand.

- Legal Issues:
The central issues are whether the information X imparted to the psychiatric nurses was confidential and, if so, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed the interest in maintaining confidentiality under s 69 of the Evidence Act 2006.

- Court's Reasoning and Outcome:
The Court found that the information X shared with the nurses was indeed confidential. However, the Court held that the public interest in disclosing this information outweighed the interest in maintaining confidentiality. The majority opinion, represented by Hammond and Fogarty JJ, reasoned that the importance of disclosing criminal activity, especially in cases of attempted murder, justifies overriding confidentiality. Ronald Young J dissented, arguing that the balance favored protecting the confidentiality of the communications between X and the nurses, especially given the critical role these communications play in assessing risk and ensuring safety.

- Final Orders:
The Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. An order was made prohibiting the publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings in the news media or on the internet until the final disposition of the trial, with publication in law reports or digests permitted.

Orders