Solicitor-General's Reference (No 1 of 2023) from CA636/2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 12/2023
[2023] NZSC 30

IN THE MATTER OF

SOLICITOR-GENERAL’S REFERENCE (NO 1 OF 2023) FROM CA636/2021 ([2022] NZCA 504)
Referrer

Court:	O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	I S Auld and T C Didsbury for Referrer F E Guy Kidd KC as counsel assisting the Court
Judgment:	6 April 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AWe grant leave to the Solicitor‑General to refer the following question of law (arising from Darling v R [2022] NZCA 504) to this Court under s 317 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011:
On the facts as set out in the Court of Appeal decision and the relevant documents on which guilty pleas were entered, did Mr Anderson’s acquittal mean that Mr Darling could not, in law, have been convicted of the offence with which he was charged, despite his guilty plea?

BWe appoint Ms Guy Kidd KC as counsel to assist the Court under s 318(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Referrer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the court considered a question of law referred by the Solicitor-General arising from the case of Darling v R. The primary issue in this case was whether Mr Darling could be lawfully convicted of the offence to which he had pleaded guilty, given that another individual, Mr Anderson, had been acquitted of the same offence. The referral was made following the Court of Appeal's decision in Darling v R, which raised significant legal questions regarding the consistency of convictions in similar circumstances.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of legal principles concerning the consistency of convictions in cases where co-defendants have been acquitted and those who have pleaded guilty. The court was tasked with determining whether the acquittal of Mr Anderson, who was charged alongside Mr Darling, rendered Mr Darling's conviction unlawful. This required a detailed examination of the evidence and the legal framework governing criminal convictions and acquittals.

In its judgment, the court granted the Solicitor-General's request to refer the question of law to the Supreme Court and appointed Ms Guy Kidd KC as counsel to assist the court. The court acknowledged the complexity of the legal issues and the importance of ensuring consistency and fairness in the criminal justice system. The court's decision to refer the matter highlighted the need for a thorough examination of the legal principles involved and the potential implications for future cases.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established