For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF RETRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA490/2010 [2011] NZCA 388
BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER JACOB JUNIOR SHADROCK
Appellant
ANDTHE QUEEN Respondent
Hearing: 12 April 2011
Court: O'Regan P, Stevens and Wild JJ Counsel: K P Brosnahan for Appellant
R J Collins for Respondent
Judgment: 12 August 2011 at 3.00 pm
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe appeal against conviction is allowed and the conviction on the charge of murder is quashed.
B The case is remitted to the High Court for a re-trial.
COrder prohibiting publication of the reasons for judgment in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial. Publication in Law Report or Law Digest
permitted.
SHADROCK V R COA CA490/2010 [12 August 2011]
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Stevens J)
Table of Contents
Para No
A bag snatch gone wrong [1] Some further detail on the background [5] Issue one: applicability of s 167(d) [16] Definition of murder [22] Section 167(d): the competing arguments [23] Origins of s 167(d) [28]
Is a criminal offence required [40] Relationship of fatal act to the other offence [49] Factors relevant to whether act for any unlawful object [64] Distinction between the unlawful object and its aftermath [74] Was s 167(d) available in this case? [77] Issue two: error in directions and question trail [84] Submissions on issue two [88] Discussion [91] Issue three: failure to sever trial of the appellant [96] Discussion [101] Issue four: absence of intoxication direction [108] Discussion [114]
Result [117]
A bag snatch gone wrong
[1] The appellant, Christopher Shadrock, was convicted of murdering Joanne Wang as a result of events that took place in a shopping mall car park in South Auckland in June 2008. Mr Shadrock and four associates planned and embarked on a criminal enterprise to snatch a bag from a member of the public returning to a vehicle in the car park and then flee the scene and divide up the proceeds of the theft.
[2] On this occasion the bag snatch went badly wrong. Mrs Wang died from injuries received when she pursued Mr Shadrock and was hit by the vehicle he was driving as he attempted to leave the scene of the crime. At his trial the Judge, Rodney Hansen J, directed the jury that they should find Mr Shadrock guilty of murder if the Crown had established that the elements of either s 167(b) or s 167(d) of the Crimes Act 1961 were met. A key ground in the appeal is whether the trial
Judge was correct to leave the case for the jury on the alternative basis by allowing the Crown to rely on s 167(d): that for an unlawful object the accused did an act…
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 Shadrock v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Shadrock v R [2011] NZCA 388
Case
[2011] NZCA 388
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Shadrock was convicted of murdering Mrs Wang as a result of a planned bag snatch in a car park in South Auckland. The appeal concerns whether the trial Judge erred in law in allowing the Crown to rely on s 167(d) of the Crimes Act as an alternative basis for a finding of murder. The appellant also argues that the trial Judge misdirected the jury on the elements of s 167(d) and on the meaning of the word “hit” in the question trail and summing up. Further, the appellant argues that a miscarriage of justice occurred from his trial being heard jointly with two of his associates. Finally, the appellant argues that the Judge erred in not giving a direction to the jury on the issue of intoxication. The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed. The case was remitted to the High Court for a retrial. The Court found that the Judge was correct in holding that s 167(d) of the Crimes Act should be left to the jury as an alternative basis for a finding of murder. The Court held that the word “unlawful” in s 167(d) of the Crimes Act requires the commission of another crime, and also an act (that is, distinct from the commission of the “unlawful purpose” crime) that is known to be likely to cause and does actually cause death. The Court held that the Judge misdirected the jury on the meaning of the word “hit” in the question trail and summing up and that this misdirection gave rise to a miscarriage of justice. The Court found that there was no miscarriage of justice in the failure to sever the trial of the appellant from that of his co-accused and that an intoxication direction was not required to be given by the Judge.