Taylor v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2012-441-9 [2012] NZHC 846

BETWEEN BRETT COLIN TAYLOR Applicant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 30 April 2012

Counsel: C R Carruthers QC for Applicant
R J Collins for Respondent

Judgment: 1 May 2012

JUDGMENT OF MILLER J

[1] This judgment records my reasons for granting Mr Taylor’s application under s 28J of the District Courts Act 1947 for transfer of the prosecution to the High Court.

[2] The feature which clearly warrants a transfer concerns the interpretation of s

240(1(d) of the Crimes Act 1961. There are some complexities in relation to “loss”

and “deception”: Morley v R [2010] 2 NZLR 608, Cai v R [2011] NZCA 604.

[3] Other considerations somewhat favour the applicant or are neutral. The principal protagonist were partners in a chartered accountancy firm and the case has obvious implications for professional reputations. No local District Court Judge could hear it. Nor could it be tried more quickly in the District Court.

[4] The trial is to be Judge-alone, and four days are required. The parties are willing to have it transferred to Wellington if that is more efficient.

TAYLOR V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC NAP CRI-2012-441-9 [1 May 2012]

[5] I direct that Mr Taylor is to appear at a callover on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 at

9.30 am at Napier. Arrangements should be made without delay in the meantime to arrange trial date and venue.

Miller J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office, Napier for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Napier Registry, heard an application by Brett Colin Taylor to transfer a criminal prosecution from the District Court to the High Court. The matter involved complexities around the interpretation of section 240(1)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961, specifically the concepts of 'loss' and 'deception'. These issues had been highlighted in previous cases such as Morley v R and Cai v R, indicating the need for a higher court's expertise. Additionally, the case involved partners in a chartered accountancy firm, and given the implications for their professional reputations, it was deemed inappropriate for a local District Court Judge to preside. The trial was expected to require four days and both parties were agreeable to the transfer, with a preference for Wellington if it would be more efficient.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of statutory language in the context of criminal law and the appropriateness of transferring a case from the District Court to the High Court under section 28J of the District Courts Act 1947. The court had to consider whether the complexities and potential reputational impacts warranted a transfer to the High Court. The court also had to assess whether the case could be tried more efficiently or appropriately in another location, such as Wellington.

In delivering the judgment, Miller J determined that the complexities surrounding the statutory interpretation and the potential impact on the professional reputations of the individuals involved warranted the transfer of the case to the High Court. The court found that a local District Court Judge could not impartially preside over the case, and that it could not be tried more quickly or efficiently in the District Court. The court accepted the parties' willingness to have the trial in Wellington if it was more efficient and directed that the case be transferred accordingly. The court set a callover date for 12 June 2012 at 9:30 am in Napier and directed that arrangements be made to determine the trial date and venue without delay.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established