Taito v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 10/2005 [2005] NZSC 36

FA'AFETE TAITO

v

THE QUEEN

Court: Elias CJ and Tipping J Counsel: T Ellis for Appellant
J C Pike for Crown

Judgment: 17 June 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

[1] Mr Taito’s appeal against conviction was re-heard following the determination of the Privy Council in R v Taito [2003] 2 NZLR 577. His appeal was dismissed a second time by the Court of Appeal in a detailed judgment delivered on 1 March
2005 and he seeks leave to appeal to this Court.

[2] The appeal to the Court of Appeal raised questions concerning delay, absence of a copy of the summing-up, empanelling of the jury and incompetence of counsel.

TAITO V R SC 10/2005 [17 June 2005]

[3] The application for leave to appeal appears to put all these matters in issue again. However, the submissions do not appear to raise any question of counsel incompetence. This issue could not, in present circumstances, raise a qualifying point for a second appeal in any event.

[4] Nor do we consider there is anything in the jury selection issue which justifies an appeal to this Court.

[5] The Court of Appeal dealt with the point concerning the absence of a record of the summing-up by applying settled law to the subject. No complaint was made about the summing-up on the first appeal, when the trial was relatively recent. In the event, nothing more than speculation supports the suggestion that there may have been some error or omission in the summing-up. We are not persuaded that any point of general or public importance arises on the issue nor do we consider a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur unless this point is considered in this Court. There is no tenable basis for finding that Mr Taito’s conviction should be quashed simply because no copy of the summing-up was available.

[6] The final matter is delay. In this respect we note that the Privy Council rejected the submission that Mr Taito’s conviction should be quashed on account of delay. Their Lordships also expressed themselves as satisfied “that the Court of Appeal should not be troubled” with the delay point on the re-hearing. A fortiori there is no basis whatever for the point to be ventilated again in this Court.

[7] Overall we are not satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to grant leave and, for that reason, the application is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Taito v The Queen, the appellant, Fa'afete Taito, sought leave to appeal against his conviction following a dismissal of his appeal by the Court of Appeal on 1 March 2005. The Court of Appeal had addressed several issues, including the absence of a copy of the summing-up, the empanelling of the jury, and the delay in the proceedings. The Supreme Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether leave to appeal should be granted. The appellant’s counsel did not raise any questions regarding counsel incompetence, and the Court found no grounds to reconsider the jury selection issue. The Court of Appeal had already addressed the absence of a record of the summing-up, concluding that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred. Furthermore, the Privy Council had previously rejected the delay argument, and the Supreme Court found no compelling reason to revisit this matter.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court included whether the absence of a record of the summing-up could justify a second appeal, whether the jury selection process was flawed, and whether the delay in proceedings warranted a reconsideration. The Supreme Court found that the absence of a record of the summing-up did not present a tenable basis for quashing the conviction. The Court also noted that the delay issue had already been dismissed by the Privy Council, and there was no compelling reason for the Supreme Court to reconsider it. Consequently, the Court concluded that none of the issues presented a point of general or public importance that warranted further appeal.

In light of the above, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court found that the arguments presented did not meet the threshold for a second appeal, as they did not raise any new or significant issues that had not already been considered by the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council. The Court emphasised that the interests of justice did not necessitate a further appeal, and therefore, the application was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established