The Queen v Robinson - [2007] NZCA 336

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA246/06

[2007] NZCA 336

THE QUEEN

Hearing:

Court:

Counsel:

PHILIP NOEL ROBINSON

21 May 2007

William Young P, Baragwanath and Heath JJ

Appellant in person

D La Hood for Crown

Judgment: 7 August 2007 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Baragwanath J)

R V ROBINSON CA CA246/06 [7 August 2007]

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction  [1]
Background  [2]
The issues  [11]

First issue: was it open to the jury to find that the appellant caused or

was party to the despatch of the pamphlets to potential jurors? [13]

Second issue (actus reus/wrongful act): whether it was open to the jury to

find that sending the pamphlets tended to pervert the course of justice [16]

Third issue: whether the issue of actus reus (wrongful act) was

properly left to the jury [24]

Fourth issue: mens rea (guilty mind): whether it was open to the jury

to find that the accused intended that the pamphlets should pervert
the course of justice (mens rea (guilty mind)) [33]

Sentence [37]

Decision [38]

Introduction

[1] Appearing without counsel, the appellant was convicted by a District Court jury of attempting to pervert the course of justice. He appeals against conviction on the grounds that the verdict was not open on the evidence and that Judge Callaghan erred in his directions to the jury. He appeals also against the sentence of 200 hours community work.

Background

[2] The appellant was due to be tried on 15 March 2004 before a jury in the District Court at Greymouth on a count of cultivating cannabis. On 9 March the Registrar had faxed a jury list to the appellant's work fax at his workplace at Bealey, Arthur's Pass. It did not have attached the customary note as to limitation of the use to which the information contained in it might properly be put. The effect of any such note was not argued and we make no comment upon it.

[3] On 11 March the Crown prosecutor for the appellant's trial received from him a 200 page book by KEA and JR d'Oudney called "The Report. Cannabis: the facts, human rights and the law ...". On several occasions between 8 and 12 March the appellant was helped by an employee of Paper Plus, Greymouth, to photocopy passages from a book that was said to resemble "The Report".

[4] On Saturday 13 March the appellant wrote to the Court an "open letter" disputing a ruling of 12 March that "The Report" was inadmissible.

[5] Also on Saturday 13 March and the following Monday 15 March, day one of the trial, persons named in the jury list received envelopes post-marked 12 and 14 March by the Christchurch Mail Centre. Those dates were consistent with their being posted from Arthur's Pass on 11 or 12 March or, as the Crown alleged, from Christchurch. The Crown does not contend that the materials sent to jurors…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Robinson [2007] NZCA 336
Case: [2007] NZCA 336
Decision Date: 7 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an appeal by Philip Noel Robinson against his conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Robinson was due to be tried for cultivating cannabis, but the trial was aborted when it was discovered that he had sent pamphlets to potential jurors. The pamphlets contained information about cannabis and statements that jurors had the right and duty to find the verdict according to their judgment on whether the law was just. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the jury's verdict was open on the evidence and that the judge's directions to the jury were not erroneous. The court held that it was open to the jury to find that Robinson caused or was party to the despatch of the pamphlets, that the act of sending the pamphlets tended to pervert the course of justice, that the issue of actus reus was properly left to the jury, and that it was open to the jury to find that Robinson intended the pamphlets to pervert the course of justice.

The court found that the pamphlets had the potential to influence the jurors to acquit Robinson in defiance of judicial direction as to the law, and therefore tended to pervert the course of justice. The court also found that the judge's directions to the jury on the issue of actus reus were correct and that the jury was properly directed on the issue of mens rea. The court held that the jury was entitled to find that Robinson intended the pamphlets to pervert the course of justice, as the pamphlets had the effect of aborting the trial. The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed, and Robinson was ordered to perform 200 hours of community work.

Orders