Signer v The Queen - [2013] NZSC 40

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 82/2012
SC 83/2012
SC 90/2012
SC 93/2012 [2013] NZSC 40

URS SIGNER

EMILY FELICITY BAILEY TAME WAIRERE ITI
TE RANGIKAIWHIRIA KEMARA

v

THE QUEEN

Court: William Young and Chambers JJ Counsel: C W J Stevenson for Applicant Signer
V C Nisbet for Applicant Bailey
E R Fairbrother for Applicant Iti
J N Bioletti for Applicant Kemara
A R Burns and M J Inwood for Crown

Judgment: 23 April 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

REASONS

[1] After a trial before a jury, Tame Iti, Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara, Urs Signer and Emily Bailey were found guilty of charges of unlawful possession of firearms and restricted weapons (Molotov cocktails) contrary to s 45 of the Arms Act 1983.
The charges arose in relation to military-style camps conducted on Tuhoe-owned

SIGNER & ORS V R SC 82/2012 [23 April 2013]

lands in the Urewera Ranges in 2006–2007 and to a search on the termination of a police operation in mid-October 2007. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on a charge relating to all four applicants of participating in an organised criminal group contrary to s 98A of the Crimes Act 1961. After the trial, on the application of the Crown, a stay of proceedings was entered on that charge.

[2] The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal. That Court dismissed their appeals.1

[3] All four now seek leave to appeal. The grounds of proposed appeal are not identical, but there is considerable overlap. On occasions, counsel for a particular applicant has simply adopted submissions advanced on behalf of another applicant.2
We have not found it necessary to differentiate between applicants as to the grounds advanced: if any ground of appeal had merit, it would have been appropriate to allow all four to advance that ground, regardless of whether the particular applicant’s counsel had specifically advanced it.

[4] In essence, six grounds of appeal were advanced. There is some overlap in the grounds, but it is perhaps easiest to deal with them separately.

[5] First, Mr Fairbrother, for Mr Iti, submitted that the trial Judge, Hansen J, had failed to direct the jury that certain evidence admissible on the s 98A charge was inadmissible on the Arms Act charges. The evidence in question was, to use Mr Fairbrother’s terminology, “general chatter evidence contained in text messages [and] computer chat room transcripts”. Mr Fairbrother accepted that this evidence of statements passing between members of the group was admissible on the s 98A charge against all members of the group pursuant to the so-called co-conspirators
rule of evidence3 preserved by s 12A of the Evidence Act 2006. But, he submitted,

s 12A did not apply to the Arms Act charges.

1      Iti v R [2012] NZCA 492.
2      We shall mention by name only the counsel who principally advanced a particular submission.
3      We call it “the so-called co-conspirators rule” because its application is not limited to…

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 Signer v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Signer v The Queen [2013] NZSC 40
Case: [2013] NZSC 40
Decision Date: 23 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in the case, Tame Iti, Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara, Urs Signer, and Emily Bailey, were found guilty of unlawful possession of firearms and restricted weapons, following a trial by jury. The charges related to military-style camps conducted on Tuhoe-owned lands in the Urewera Ranges in 2006–2007, and a search conducted at the termination of a police operation in mid-October 2007. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on a charge relating to all four applicants of participating in an organised criminal group. The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed their appeals. The applicants now seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had failed to direct the jury on certain evidence, whether the Crown misrepresented its case to the court, whether the trial judge had erred in directing on "purpose" under s 45, whether the trial judge wrongly dealt with the reverse onus of proof in s 45(2), whether the extensive pre-trial media reporting raised an issue of general or public importance, and whether a sentencing issue was raised by the jury being unable to agree on the s 98A charge.

The court found that the trial judge had not failed to direct the jury on certain evidence, as the evidence in question was admissible on all charges. The court also found that the Crown had not misrepresented its case to the court, and that the trial judge had not erred in directing on "purpose" under s 45. The court found that the issue of the reverse onus of proof in s 45(2) did not meet the criteria for leave under the Supreme Court Act 2003. The court found that the extensive pre-trial media reporting did not raise an issue of general or public importance, and that the sentencing issue did not warrant a second appeal.

The court concluded that none of the matters raised was, when properly analysed, of general or public importance. Nor did the court consider a substantial miscarriage of justice may occur if the appeals were not heard. The court therefore dismissed the applications for leave to appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the applications for leave to appeal be dismissed.

Orders