The Queen v Atkins - [2000] NZCA 9

Order prohibiting publication of the contents of this judgment until conclusion of the High Court trial or further order of the High Court

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA511/99
CA548/99

THE QUEEN

LAWRENCE GLEN ATKINS
MARK WILLIAM EDMONDS

CA521/99
CA522/99
CA523/99
CA524/99

THE QUEEN

LAWRENCE GLEN ATKINS
MARK WILLIAM EDMONDS
SAM DAVID TE MARO
CYRUS TAIAPA

Hearing:	3 February 2000
Coram:	Richardson P Henry J Thomas J Keith J Blanchard J
Appearances:	G W Calver for Atkins J C Mathieson for Edmonds D D Rishworth for Te Maro D J Sharp for Taiapa S P France and D R W Barry for the Crown
Judgment:	9 February 2000

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY HENRY J

These two applications for leave to appeal by the accused Atkins and the accused Edmonds are against witness anonymity orders made in the High Court on 2 December 1999 under sections 13C and 13G of the Evidence Act 1908. The orders were made on the application of the prosecutor, and relate to five witnesses. They are known as witnesses A, B, E, I and J. Similar applications are not made by either the accused Te Maro or the accused Taiapa. There is a further application under which the Crown seeks an amendment to one of the s13G orders which applies to all four accused persons.
The four accused have been committed for trial on a charge of murder arising out of an assault in the carpark of the Gisborne Hotel close to midnight on 6 March 1999. All four are either members of or associated with the Gisborne Mongrel Mob. Two are full patched members, one a gang prospect and the fourth accused (Mr Atkins) is said to be an associate of the gang and plays in their rugby team. The incident occurred at the Gisborne Hotel at a prize-giving function following a rugby league tournament. The tournament had been organised in an effort to build relationships and ease tensions between the areas Maori and Tongan inhabitants, and involved a number of local teams including the Mongrel Mob team, ‘United Bulldogs’. It appears to have been run without any serious problems.
At the function a fight broke out between a Tongan man, the deceased, and some men drinking at a table which included some members of the Mongrel Mob. Punches were exchanged and the deceased suffered a small cut to his mouth. The fight was broken up and a friend of the deceased led him away.
On the way out the deceased punched his hand through a glass window breaking it. The Crown case is that in the carpark of the hotel some Mongrel Mob members and associates demanded to know why the deceased had broken the window and one of the men began punching the deceased in the face. The deceased was knocked to the ground and a vicious assault began as the group of men, which it is alleged included the accused, punched and kicked the deceased.…

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 The Queen v Atkins

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Atkins [2000] NZCA 9
Case: [2000] NZCA 9
Decision Date: 9 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard two applications for leave to appeal against anonymity orders made in the High Court under sections 13C and 13G of the Evidence Act 1908. The applicants were two of the four accused facing a charge of murder. The witnesses concerned had agreed to give evidence only on the condition of anonymity. The High Court granted the orders, and the applicants sought leave to appeal. The Crown also sought leave to appeal an order under section 13G.

The Court of Appeal found that the anonymity orders met the statutory requirements, and that the accused would not be deprived of a fair trial by their implementation. The Court also found that there was no error in the Judge's exercise of discretion under section 13C(4), and that the circumstances were sufficiently exceptional to justify the orders. The Crown's appeal against an order under section 13G was dismissed. The Court found no issue under section 13B. The appeals were dismissed, but leave to appeal was granted.

Orders