The Queen v Mosley

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA612/2007
[2008] NZCA 319
THE QUEEN
v
CHRISTOPHER JAMES FULLBECK MOSLEY
Hearing:27 June 2008

Court:Baragwanath, Rodney Hansen and Harrison JJ
Counsel:P Heaslip for Appellant

M D Downs for Crown

Judgment:25 August 2008 at 4pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Baragwanath J)
[1]       The appellant was tried jointly with Roderick Sidney Harris whose appeal was based on the decision of the trial Judge to continue with the trial after the number of jurors had reduced to ten.
[2]       On 13 August 2008 we gave judgment dismissing Mr Harris’ appeal.
[3]       Mr Heaslip advanced the same contention on behalf of the present appellant. For the reasons given in our judgment of 13 August 2008 that contention fails.
[4]       At one stage in his argument Mr Heaslip contended that the Judge should not have discharged the 12th and 11th jurors (even though Mr Mosley sought that result). But s 374(8) of the Crimes Act 1961 expressly excludes the right to review the exercise of a discretion under the section. There is no basis for alleging miscarriage under s 385 in relation to that point.
[5]       By minute of 27 June 2008 we recorded that if the appellant wished to pursue further issues listed by Mr Heaslip in his written submissions any affidavits in support of such contentions should be filed and served by 4 July 2008 and any affidavits by the Crown in response by 11 July 2008, after which we would review whether there was a need for a further hearing. Those issues were whether after the jury had reduced to ten a juror fell asleep, and on other occasions was seen doodling so that the effect of the number of conscious jurors was reduced to nine. Mr Heaslip later advised that that point was abandoned. A further point that the Judge should not have refused an application to discharge the jury on the grounds of unreasonable delay was abandoned following argument.
[6]       It follows that the appellant’s appeal fails and it is dismissed.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand delivered its judgment in the case of The Queen v Mosley, where the appellant, Christopher James Fullbeck Mosley, was challenging his conviction. Mosley's appeal was based on the same grounds as the appeal of Roderick Sidney Harris, who was tried jointly with Mosley. The primary issue Harris had raised was the trial judge's decision to proceed with the trial after the number of jurors had reduced to ten. Mosley's counsel, Mr Heaslip, sought to advance the same contention on behalf of Mosley, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on the basis of the reasons given in the earlier judgment dismissing Harris' appeal.

The Court found that Mosley's contention failed for the same reasons as those stated in the earlier judgment. Additionally, Mr Heaslip attempted to argue that the trial judge should not have discharged the 12th and 11th jurors, even though Mosley had sought that result. However, Section 374(8) of the Crimes Act 1961 explicitly excludes the right to review the exercise of a discretion under that section, thus there was no basis for alleging a miscarriage under Section 385 in relation to that point.

Further issues raised by Mr Heaslip, such as a juror falling asleep and another being seen doodling, which allegedly reduced the number of conscious jurors to nine, were abandoned by counsel. The Court of Appeal subsequently dismissed Mosley's appeal and recorded that the appeal was to be dismissed as the points raised by counsel did not provide any valid grounds for appeal.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of Christopher James Fullbeck Mosley and upheld his conviction, finding no merit in the arguments advanced on his behalf.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established