Signer v The Queen

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.