NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE
CRI-2022-419-70
[2024] NZHC 1013
BETWEEN
JEFFREY JOHN HAMILTON TAYLOR
Appellant
AND
THE KING
Respondent
Hearing:
19 and 20 March 2024
Counsel:
J Tarrant and S Taylor for Appellant Z Johnston for Respondent
Judgment:
30 April 2024
JUDGMENT OF MUIR J
This judgment was delivered by me on 30 April 2024 at 3.30 pm.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….
Solicitors:
Crown Law, Wellington
TAYLOR v R [2024] NZHC 1013 [30 April 2024]
Introduction
[1] Following a Judge-alone trial in the District Court before Judge R G Marshall, Mr Jeffrey Taylor was convicted of 17 charges involving offending of a sexual nature in relation to two young complainants and the possession of objectionable publications. On 21 September 2022, the Judge imposed a sentence of 18 years and six months’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of nine years and three months.1
[2] Mr Taylor now appeals his conviction and sentence. He appeals his sentence on the sole ground that he was denied potential credit at sentencing for cultural factors due to counsel not pursuing a s 27 report as instructed. He appeals his conviction on the ground that a miscarriage of justice occurred by way of the following alleged errors:
(a)trial counsel error(s) and inadequate representation and advice;
(b)trial counsel failure to follow Mr Taylor’s instructions;
(c)errors in the Judge’s decision not to admit evidence relating to a false complaint by complainant SB;
(d)evidence at trial not being properly tested and leading to verdicts that were unreasonable;
(e)comments by the Judge implying that the trial was being rushed so as to avoid impacting other trials;
(f)a propensity discussion and ruling in the absence of defence counsel; and
(g)a change of election (jury trial to Judge-alone) made on the morning of trial.
1 R v Taylor [2022] NZDC 18490 [Sentencing Notes].
[3] Both the appellant, Mr Taylor, and trial counsel, Mr Bell, have filed affidavits. In respect of Mr Bell’s evidence, privilege was waived.
Background facts
[4]I adopt the Crown’s comprehensive statement of facts.
[5] In December 2019, the complainant AJ made various disclosures to her parents about Mr Taylor. AJ’s mother was at the time struggling with addiction. Mr Taylor was a friend who would help out by periodically providing care for AJ and her younger brother. Mr Taylor lived with his parents at the time, and the children would sometimes stay the night with them so they could be taken to school the next day.
[6] AJ told her father she had been sleeping in Mr Taylor’s bed and he cuddled and kissed her, and she didn’t like it.
[7] AJ was nine at the time of her Police interview and she presented as unsure of why she was speaking to Police. She talked about sometimes going to her mother’s friend…
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
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Taylor v The King [2024] NZHC 1013
Case
[2024] NZHC 1013
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Jeffrey Taylor, the appellant, was convicted in a Judge-alone trial of multiple charges related to the sexual abuse of two young girls and possession of objectionable publications. The District Court Judge imposed a sentence of 18 years and six months’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of nine years and three months. Taylor appeals both his conviction and sentence. In respect of his conviction, he contends that a miscarriage of justice occurred due to alleged errors and irregularities in the trial process. In relation to his sentence, he argues that he was denied potential credit at sentencing for cultural factors due to his counsel not pursuing a s 27 report as instructed. The Court found that none of the alleged errors or irregularities carried a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected or resulted in an unfair trial. The evidence against Taylor was overwhelming, and the trial was conducted in a manner consistent with ensuring a fair trial. The Court also found that Taylor’s counsel was adequately prepared and that there was no real risk the trial outcome was affected by his counsel's preparation. The Court dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals.