The Queen v Daniel Peter Kenneth Gee

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA374/00

THE QUEEN

DANIEL PETER KENNETH GEE

Hearing:	19 March 2001
Coram:	Tipping J Robertson J Young J
Appearances:	J M Ablett Kerr QC and T M Stephenson for Appellant J C Pike for Crown
Judgment:	19 March 2001

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY TIPPING J

This appeal is allowed for reasons to be given later. The conviction for burglary is set aside and we order a retrial.
In relation to the direction which the Judge should give on the retrial, if such becomes necessary, counsel are to file written submissions on the point of principle discussed this morning. The Crown is to file its written submissions within 14 days of today’s date, and Mrs Ablett Kerr will file her submissions within 14 days of receipt of the Crown’s submissions.

Solicitors
McKinnon Aitken Martin, Dunedin, for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appeal of Daniel Peter Kenneth Gee against his conviction for burglary was heard on 19 March 2001. The case was presided over by Tipping J, Robertson J, and Young J, with legal representation for the appellant, Daniel Gee, provided by J M Ablett Kerr QC and T M Stephenson. The Crown was represented by J C Pike. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside, with an order for a retrial. The judges instructed that written submissions on the principle discussed during the hearing be filed by both parties, with the Crown to submit within 14 days of the judgment date and the defence to follow within 14 days of receipt of the Crown's submissions.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury regarding the principles applicable to the offence of burglary. The appeal raised questions about the correctness of the jury direction, specifically focusing on whether the trial judge had provided a sufficiently clear and accurate statement of the law for the jury to apply in their deliberations. The appellant's counsel argued that the jury direction was flawed and, as a result, the conviction should be quashed, and a retrial ordered.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's direction to the jury contained errors that were significant enough to warrant a retrial. The judges concluded that the direction did not adequately encapsulate the legal principles necessary for the jury to make a proper determination of the appellant's guilt or innocence. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and ordered a retrial, recognising that a fair trial was compromised by the inadequate jury direction. The Court did not delve into the merits of the appellant's guilt or innocence but focused solely on the legal issue of the jury direction.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established