Taylor v Witness C - [2017] NZHC 2610

INTERIM ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF APPEAL.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-004-7370 [2017] NZHC 2610

ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR

v

WITNESS C

Hearing: 25 October 2017

Counsel:

R Francois for Prosecutor
A Simperingham for prisoner

Sentence

25 October 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J

Solicitors: Amicus Law, Auckland
Woodward Chrisp, Gisborne

TAYLOR v WITNESS C [2017] NZHC 2610 [25 October 2017]

Name Suppression

[1] Witness C, I would normally invite you to stand but then I would invite you to sit down, so just remain seated for now. Before I commence with the sentence, I want to repeat my decision, or at least the outcome of my evaluation on the application for suppression. The application by various members of the media to revoke the name suppression order made by Tompkins J on 20 November 1990 is revoked. A judgment with reasons for my decision will be released separately. I do, however, make an interim order for suppression, having been advised that Witness C is going to appeal to the Court of Appeal; and so I make an interim order suppressing Witness C’s identity pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal matter, but with leave granted to the media outlets to return to this Court to seek further assistance if necessary.

Introduction

[2] Turning then to the sentence, Witness C, you have been found guilty of eight charges of perjury.1 These charges relate to evidence you gave at the trial of David Tamihere for murder in 1990. You face a maximum term of imprisonment of
14 years.2

[3] In order to provide proper context to your offending, it is necessary to describe the background facts in some detail.

Facts

[4] In preparing this background I have referred to the evidence given at your trial and the summary of the evidence given at Mr Tamihere’s trial provided by the Court of Appeal.3

[5] Mr Tamihere was charged and convicted of the murder of two Swedish tourists, Heidi Paakkonen and Sven Hoglin, in 1990. The Crown case at his trial was
wholly circumstantial, as the bodies of the victims had not been located. The Crown

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 108 and 109.
2      Section 109(2).
3      R v Tamihere CA428/90, 21 May 1992, and Taylor v C [2017] NZCA 372.

case included key evidence from two trampers who saw a man they identified as Mr Tamihere with a woman, they said, was similar to Ms Paakkonen. The victims’ possessions were also found at Mr Tamihere’s address, including the rental car they had hired, the keys, and Ms Paakkonen’s poncho. Balanced against this, there was evidence from a number of defence witnesses that the couple were seen at the northern tip of Coromandel Pennisula at the time when the woman resembling Ms Paakkonen was said to have been seen by the two trampers.

[6] Three prisoners also…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Taylor v Witness C and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NZHC 2610
Decision Date: 25 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Witness C, was convicted of eight charges of perjury in relation to evidence given at the trial of David Tamihere, who was charged with the murder of two Swedish tourists in 1990. The Court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence for the defendant's perjury, which was found to be a serious breach of the integrity of the criminal justice system. The Court also had to consider the application for suppression of the defendant's name and address, which was revoked by the Court. The Court found that the defendant's perjury was a brazen assault on the foundation of the criminal justice system and was a very serious example of perjury. The Court imposed a sentence of eight years and seven months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently on each charge. The Court also made an interim order suppressing the defendant's identity pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal matter.

Orders