Rolleston v The Queen

[2020] NZSC 113

FOR A COURT READY (FEE REQUIRED) VERSION PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF PREVIOUSLY SUPPRESSED MINUTES ISSUED IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT.

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

 NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANT UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS OR NAMED WITNESS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

 NOTE: PUBLICATION OF ANY MATERIAL, BROADCASTING OF ANY MATTER OR DISCLOSURE OF ANY INFORMATION THAT IDENTIFIES OR MAY LEAD TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF A JUROR OR FORMER JUROR PROHIBITED BY S 32B OF THE JURIES ACT 1981. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

 SC 17/2019
 [2020] NZSC 113

BETWEEN	BROOKE CHRISTIE ROLLESTON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

SC 18/2019
BETWEEN	BRANDON JAMES ROCHE Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearings:	20 June and 13 November 2019
Court:	Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel: (20 June 2019) Counsel: (13 November 2019)	E Huda and T D A Harre for Appellant in SC 17/2019 A J Bailey for Appellant in SC 18/2019 M J Lillico and K L Kensington for Respondent E Huda for Appellant in SC 17/2019 A J Bailey for Appellant in SC 18/2019 M J Lillico and M H Cooke for Respondent
Judgments:	26 June and 19 November 2019
Reasons:	19 October 2020

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AOrder made directing an inquiry to be undertaken by an independent practitioner of the jury foreperson in the appellants’ trial on terms to be settled following receipt of a memorandum of counsel.

BThe application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.

CThe appeals are dismissed.

DExisting suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Para No.
Winkelmann CJ, O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ	[1]
Glazebrook J	[72]

WINKELMANN CJ, O’REGAN, ELLEN FRANCE AND WILLIAMS JJ

(Given by Williams J)

Table of Contents

Para No.
Introduction	[1]
Facts as found by the trial Judge in light of the verdicts	[2]
Allegation of juror bias	[7]
The Court of Appeal decisions	[13]
The inquiry	[13]
The substantive appeal	[15]
The issues	[17]
The power to order an inquiry	[19]
Section 76 of the Evidence Act 2006	[21]
Intrinsic evidence and the exclusionary rule: s 76(1)	[22]
Extrinsic evidence: s 76(2)	[28]
Application for an inquiry	[32]
Submissions	[32]
The interests of justice	[34]
Other fair trial safeguards	[35]
The test	[42]
Application to this case	[45]
The inquiry	[49]
The substantive appeal	[56]
Application to cross-examine S	[59]
Does the evidence establish actual or apparent bias?	[63]
Result	[71]

Introduction

1. Following a trial by jury in 2017, the appellants Brooke Rolleston and Brandon Roche were convicted of the rape…