The Queen v Williams and Williams - [2008] NZCA 296

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA664/07
CA686/07
[2008] NZCA 296
THE QUEEN
v
SHANE EDWARD WILLIAMS
DALE ARTHUR WILLIAMS
Hearing:2 July 2008

Court:Arnold, Panckhurst and Fogarty JJ
Counsel:L Cordwell for S E Williams

M A Edgar for D A Williams
K Raftery for Crown

Judgment:12 August 2008 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeals are dismissed.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Arnold J)

Introduction
[1] Following a jury trial before Asher J, the appellants, Shane and Dale Williams, together with their brother Christopher Williams, were convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine between 23 May and 16 December 2002. All three were also charged with one count each of manufacturing methamphetamine. Dale and Christopher Williams were convicted on the manufacturing count but Shane Williams was acquitted. Shane and Dale Williams now appeal against their convictions.
Basis of appeal
[2] Mr Cordwell for Shane Williams and Mr Edgar for Dale Williams (who represented himself at trial) raised two principal grounds of appeal, although their arguments in support differed somewhat. They submitted that Asher J:
(a)Should have stayed the proceedings against the appellants on the ground of prejudice arising from undue delay; and
(b)Erred in allowing the Crown to rely on evidence relating to the manufacturing charge to prove the conspiracy charge.

Mr Edgar also submitted that the Judge misdirected the jury in relation to the conspiracy charge.
[3]        We deal with each point in turn.
Undue delay
[4]        The appellants alleged that their right to be tried without undue delay, recognised in s 25(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), was infringed. They, together with nine co-accused, applied prior to trial for a stay of proceedings on this ground. The basis of the application was that, by the time their trials were scheduled to be completed, the various accused would have been under arrest and on bail for approximately five years.
[5]        Asher J granted the application in respect of eight of the accused, but declined it in respect of the appellants and their brother, Christopher Williams: HC AK CRI 2007-404-0006 and CRI 2007-404-0007 10 August 2007.
The decision of the High Court
[6]        The Judge summarised the history of the proceedings as follows:
[5]       To understand the delay in this case, it is necessary to trace the unusual and unfortunate history of the proceedings in more detail. I set out now a general short chronology:
27 November 2002  First appearance by most accused.
November 2002 to September 2003 5 pre-depositions – adjourned.
15 September 2003  Pre-depositions – depositions set down for 3 weeks in February.
2 February 2004  Depositions commence – run for 3 weeks, all accused are committed to trial.
28 April 2004   Call-over – trial and pre-trials set down.
August 2004   Pre-trial applications and pre-trial conference.
6 September 2004   First trial due to commence – Dale Williams does not appear, Heath J adjourns commencement of trial until Dale Williams located.
10 September 2004   First trial proceeds as Dale Williams…

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 The Queen v Williams and Williams 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: [2008] NZCA 296
Decision Date: 12 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeals were brought by Shane and Dale Williams against their convictions for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and their acquittal and conviction respectively on a count of manufacturing methamphetamine. The appellants argued that the trial judge erred in not staying the proceedings due to undue delay and in allowing evidence of the manufacturing charge to be used in relation to the conspiracy charge. The court dismissed the appeals. In relation to the undue delay claim, the court found that the delay was exceptionally long but that there was no trial prejudice, and the seriousness of the charges warranted the prosecution proceeding. The court also found that the judge did not err in allowing evidence of the manufacturing charge to be used as evidence of the conspiracy charge, as the specific instances of manufacturing were simply incidents of the broader conspiracy. The court further found that the judge did not misdirect the jury on the conspiracy charge.

Orders