Taylor v Jones; Skelton v Jones

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 88/2006
[2006] NZSC 104
BETWEENNIKALA JANICE TAYLOR

Appellant

ANDCHRISTOPHER DEAN JONES

Respondent

SC 90/2006

AND BETWEEN KAY HALTON SKELTON

Appellant

ANDCHRISTOPHER DEAN JONES

Respondent

Hearing:6 December 2006

Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ
Counsel:W C Pyke for N J Taylor

D P H Jones QC for K H Skelton
T Sutcliffe and L F Walkington for Respondent

Judgment:6 December 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

In relation to Ms N J Taylor:
A Leave to appeal is granted.
BThe order for habeas corpus made by Heath J in the High Court on 18 October 2006 was a final order and accordingly the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal.
CThe appeal is allowed. The orders for habeas corpus and other orders made by the High Court on 18 October 2006, except Order No. 9 relating to publication of the name of Nikala J Taylor, are quashed in respect of this appellant.
DThe order for suppression of this appellant’s name, made by the High Court on 18 October 2006, is to lapse at 9 a.m. on 7 December 2006.
EThe sealed affidavit by this appellant, held on the Court file, and any copies, must be returned to Mr W C Pyke.

F Costs are reserved.

In relation to Ms K H Skelton:
A Leave to appeal is granted.
BThe order for habeas corpus made by Heath J in the High Court on 18 October 2006 was a final order.

C The appeal is dismissed.
D Costs are reserved.

____________________________________________________________________
[1]       We are not prepared to make any suppression orders in respect of the proceedings in this Court,
[2]       Reasons for judgment will be given in due course.
[3]       We wish to make it clear that the order of Keane J imprisoning Ms Skelton was not the subject of any separate appeal to this Court.
Solicitors:
Swarbrick Dixon, Hamilton for N J Taylor
Tristram Law Centre, Hamilton for K H Skelton
Till Henderson King, Hamilton for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was presented with two appeals in Taylor v Jones and Skelton v Jones. In the first appeal, Nikala Janice Taylor sought to appeal the decision of Heath J in the High Court which had granted her habeas corpus. In the second appeal, Kay Halton Skelton sought to appeal the same decision of Heath J. The appeals were consolidated for hearing. The key legal issues before the Court were whether the order for habeas corpus was a final order, which would confer jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal, and whether the Court should grant leave to appeal. The Court also had to consider the appropriate outcome of the appeals, including whether to quash the habeas corpus order and any suppression orders made by the High Court.

The Court found that the habeas corpus order was a final order, which meant that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeals. The Court granted leave to appeal in both cases. Regarding the substantive appeal, the Court allowed the appeal in Taylor's case and quashed the habeas corpus order and other orders made by the High Court, except for the order suppressing Taylor's name. The suppression order was to lapse on 7 December 2006. The Court dismissed Skelton's appeal. The Court did not make any suppression orders in relation to the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Court reserved costs in both appeals.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established