Taylor v The King - [2024] NZSC 7

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE align="center">NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANT UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA
SC 113/2023
[2024] NZSC 7

BETWEEN
BRETT OWEN TAYLOR
Applicant

AND

THE KING
Respondent

Court:
Glazebrook and Kós JJ

Counsel:

S Brickell for Applicant
H G Clark for Respondent

Judgment:

9 February 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Mr Brett Taylor was convicted, after a jury trial, of 18 charges of sexual offending, including sexual violation by rape, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and doing an indecent act on a young person.[1] Four of the rape charges and two of the unlawful sexual connection charges were representative charges. The offending took place over a period when the complainant was aged between around seven and 14.
[1]Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(a), 128(1)(b) and 134(3) respectively.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Taylor’s appeal against conviction and sentence.[2] He now seeks leave to appeal to this Court against the dismissal of the conviction appeal.

Court of Appeal judgment

[2]Taylor v R [2023] NZCA 476 (Wylie, Ellis and van Bohemen JJ) [CA judgment].

Mr Taylor’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was on the basis that the trial Judge (Judge Grau) misdirected the jury on the consent element of the charges for rape and unlawful sexual connection and that this resulted in a miscarriage of justice.[3]
[3]At [3].
The Court of Appeal was satisfied that this case differed from Christian v R.[4] Unlike in Christian v R, both in the question trial and in the summing up, the trial Judge in Mr Taylor’s case specifically directed the jury that consent had to be proven.[5] In her summing up, the Judge also said that there is no presumption that a person is incapable of consenting to sexual connection because of age.[6] The Court held that the Judge properly drew the jury’s attention to the fact that, even though Mr Taylor’s case was that the alleged acts of sexual violation did not happen, if the jury was satisfied that the acts did in fact happen, they had to be sure that the complainant had not consented to the acts and that Mr Taylor had not reasonably believed that she had.[7]
[4]Christian v R [2017] NZSC 145, [2018] 1 NZLR 315.
[5]CA judgment, above n 2, at [26].
[6]At [26].
[7]At [27].
Mr Taylor also argued in the Court of Appeal that the trial Judge had quoted selectively from s 128A of the Crimes Act 1961. The Court held this to have no factual foundation.[8] The Judge only covered the elements of that section that might have been relevant.[9] The Court did…

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Taylor v The King [2024] NZSC 7
Case: [2024] NZSC 7
Decision Date: 9 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Brett Owen Taylor applied for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal against both his conviction and sentence. Mr Taylor was convicted, after a jury trial, of 18 charges of sexual offending against a complainant aged between around seven and 14. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing Mr Taylor's appeal on the basis that the trial Judge had not misdirected the jury on the consent element of the charges and that the trial Judge's directions to the jury were sufficient. Mr Taylor sought leave to appeal to this Court on the basis that the Court of Appeal had erred in law in dismissing his appeal against conviction. The court had to determine whether the application raised a matter of general or public importance or whether there was an appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the application for leave to appeal did not raise a matter of general or public importance nor did it suggest any appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The court found that Mr Taylor's application for leave to appeal sought to revisit the arguments rejected by the Court of Appeal, which concerned the application of settled law to the particular circumstances of Mr Taylor's trial. The court held that the application did not raise any matter of general or public importance nor did it suggest any appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The court was satisfied that the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the law and there was no basis for the Supreme Court to interfere with the decision of the Court of Appeal. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders