Legal Research
Cases
Taylor v R

Taylor v R

Case [2018] NZCA 498 13 November 2018

Type to search within this case.

FOR A COURT READY (FEE REQUIRED) VERSION PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA169/2018
[2018] NZCA 498

BETWEEN	HAYDEN JOSEPH TAYLOR Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	6 September 2018
Court:	Kós P, Clifford and Williams JJ
Counsel:	N P Chisnall and S Moore for Appellant A Markham for Respondent
Judgment:	13 November 2018 at 4.00 pm
Reissued:	14 November 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
BThe appeal is allowed.
CThe sentence of preventive detention is quashed and a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Kós P)

In April 1996, when he was 20 years of age, Hayden Taylor abducted and raped a young Auckland woman. In September that year he abducted and murdered an 18‑year‑old female acquaintance from Helensville. He pleaded guilty to the September crimes and was sentenced to life imprisonment in November 1996. He elected trial by jury on the earlier offending. In due course he was convicted of those charges in August 1997, and sentenced by Morris J in December 1997.[1] The Judge quite properly took into account the later offending and the circumstances of the abduction and killing.[2] After hearing evidence from two police officers he found that offending was sexually motivated. It was accepted Mr Taylor qualified for preventive detention. After considering psychiatric evidence, limited apparent prospects of rehabilitation and the interests of the public, a sentence of preventive detention was imposed on the rape charge.[3] Mr Taylor did not appeal.
[1]R v Taylor HC Auckland T244/96, 16 December 1997.
[2]At 3.
[3]At 2 and 3–5. He was convicted and discharged on the abduction charge.
Eight years after Mr Taylor’s appeal period expired, the Supreme Court held in R v Mist that the qualifying age for preventive detention under s 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 was 21 at the date of offending, rather than conviction.[4] That represented a change in the interpretation of s 75. Mr Taylor turned 21 only after committing the offending set out above. Mr Taylor took legal advice on the effect of Mist shortly after the decision was delivered. He decided not to seek an extension of time to appeal. Twelve years on, however, he has changed his mind. He now applies for an extension of time to appeal. His submission, in short, is that he was not eligible for preventive detention at all under s 75 of the Criminal Justice Act when, in December 1997, it was imposed upon him.
[4]R v Mist [2005] NZSC 77, [2006] 3 NZLR 145 at [5] per Elias CJ and Keith J, at [62] per Gault J and at [107] per Blanchard and Tipping JJ.
This application raises a point of some complexity about the tension between the principle of finality of judicial decisions and the declaratory theory of the common law (to the effect that judgments…

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 Taylor v R

Details

AGLC: Taylor v R [2018] NZCA 498
Case: [2018] NZCA 498
Decision Date: 13 November 2018 at 4.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hayden Joseph Taylor, the appellant, has appealed against his sentence for abduction and rape of a woman in 1996. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard his application on 6 September 2018 and delivered its judgment on 13 November 2018. The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether to grant an extension of time to appeal and if the sentence of preventive detention should be quashed and substituted with a finite sentence. The court concluded that the retention of finality in this case would be objectionable and work a substantial injustice. It granted the extension of time to appeal, allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence of preventive detention, and substituted a sentence of 14 years' imprisonment. The court reasoned that the conviction was not in issue and that the appellant sought no unfair advantage. The court found the delay in bringing the application explicable and not a formal election. The court also noted that the alteration to the appellant's sentence would not mean he must be immediately released as he remains a serving prisoner on a life sentence for murder.

Orders