Rippey v The Queen

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF COMPLAINANT’S PARENTS’ NAMES REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 78/2018
[2021] NZSC 160

BETWEEN	GORDON JOHN RIPPEY Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	A Shaw for Applicant M J Lillico for Respondent
Judgment:	23 November 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal is granted (Rippey v R [2018] NZCA 306).
BThe approved question is whether the trial judge should have given a warning under s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The Court is open to arguments about the general approach to warnings under s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006. This means it is open to hearing submissions on CT v R.[1]
[1]CT (SC 88/2013) v R [2014] NZSC 155, [2015] 1 NZLR 465.
The Registry is to provide a copy of this judgment to the Criminal Bar Association and we invite the Association to intervene in this appeal. If it wishes to do so, it is to alert the Registry as soon as possible.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gordon John Rippey applied for leave to appeal a decision made by the Court of Appeal. The appeal concerns the admissibility of evidence and whether a warning under section 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 should have been given by the trial judge. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed the appeal, but the Supreme Court granted leave for the applicant to appeal. The specific issue before the Supreme Court was whether the trial judge should have issued a warning under section 122 of the Evidence Act 2006. The Court considered the general approach to such warnings and whether the precedent set in CT v R was applicable. The Supreme Court indicated that it was open to considering arguments on this issue and invited the Criminal Bar Association to intervene if it wished to do so.

The Supreme Court's decision to grant leave to appeal and to consider the specific issue of whether a warning under section 122 should have been given by the trial judge, sets the stage for a detailed examination of the legal principles surrounding such warnings. The Court's invitation to the Criminal Bar Association to intervene suggests a recognition of the broader implications of this case for the interpretation and application of the Evidence Act 2006. The outcome of this appeal could potentially influence future cases involving the admissibility of evidence and the role of warnings in ensuring a fair trial.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established