SR v R

Case [2011] NZCA 409 25 August 2011

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA783/2010
CA838/2010
CA232/2011 [2011] NZCA 409

BETWEEN SR Appellant

ANDTHE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 14 July 2011
Court: Randerson, Potter and Ronald Young JJ Counsel: T Ellis and G Edgeler for Appellant
S B Edwards for Respondent

Judgment: 25 August 2011 at 2.30 p.m.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AWe decline to extend the time for appealing against the Hamilton convictions (CA783/2010).

B We decline leave to appeal against the propensity evidence ruling

(CA838/2010).

CWe dismiss the appeals against the rulings made in the High Court under ss 9 and 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act
2003 (CA232/2011).

SR V R COA CA783/2010 [25 August 2011]

DOrder prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.
Publication in law report or law digest permitted.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction [1]

The appeal against the Hamilton convictions [7]

The factual background [7]

The appellant’s submissions in relation to the Hamilton convictions [28]

Hamilton convictions – discussion [35]

Was there a real risk the appellant might not have been fit to stand trial

in respect of the Hamilton charges?
[61]

Nullity/Miscarriage [66]

Application for extension of time to appeal [68]

The appeal against the High Court ruling on s 9 of the CPMIP and

the associated ruling on propensity evidence
[78]

First preliminary issue - jurisdiction [78]

Second preliminary issue – capacity to instruct counsel [93]

The Judge’s findings [96]

Factual background [100]

The propensity evidence ruling [108]

The grounds of appeal advanced in relation to the propensity evidence

issue
[117]

The s 9 ruling [138]

The grounds of appeal in relation to the s 14 ruling [144]

The Judge’s findings [146]

The Judge’s conclusions on the s 14 issue [161]

Our own review of the evidence [164]

Generic issues [192]

Conclusion and disposition [193]

Introduction

[1] The appellant is facing trial in the High Court in Wellington on two counts of arson. It is alleged that he lit fires at Wellington College on 12 and 14 December
2009.

[2] The appellant has raised issues about his fitness for trial. Dobson J ruled under s 9 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the CPMIP) that, on the balance of probabilities, the evidence was sufficient to establish that the appellant lit the fires.1 The Judge also later ruled under s 14 of the CPMIP that the appellant is not mentally impaired and is fit to stand trial.2

[3] The Crown sought to introduce as propensity evidence at the…

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 SR v R

Details

AGLC: SR v R [2011] NZCA 409
Case: [2011] NZCA 409
Decision Date: 25 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SR is an appellant who is facing trial on two counts of arson. He has appealed against the High Court ruling that evidence of his previous convictions for arson should be admitted, against the ruling that the evidence was sufficient to establish that he lit the fires, and against the ruling that he was fit to stand trial. The Court of Appeal dismissed all three appeals. The Court found that SR had intellectual deficits but that they were not so severe as to warrant a formal diagnosis of intellectual disability. The Court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish that SR lit the fires, and that he was fit to stand trial.

Orders