Thomas v The Queen

[2014] NZHC 2401

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-004-13119

[2014] NZHC 2401

EDWARD ZBEDO THOMAS

v

THE QUEEN

Hearing:	2 October 2014
Appearances:	M N Pecotic for defendant M R Walker for Crown
Judgment:	2 October 2014

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application for discharge under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011]

THOMAS v R [2014] NZHC 2401 [2 October 2014]

[1]                 Mr Thomas is one of a number of defendants who are to face trial in July 2015 on charges arising out of a riot at the Springhill Prison on the weekend of 1-2 June 2013.

[2]                 Mr Thomas has pleaded guilty to a charge of causing riotous damage, but maintains a not guilty plea in respect of a charge of arson. His counsel points out that Mr Thomas is not captured on any CCTV images as being involved in the lighting of fires at the prison during the riot. He has therefore applied for an order that he be discharged on the charge of arson pursuant to s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. He advances the application on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to enable a properly directed jury to reasonably convict.1

[3]                 The difficulty so far as this application is concerned is that there is eyewitness evidence from two witnesses to the effect that they saw Mr Thomas piling items on an existing fire and starting a second fire. This Court cannot disregard that evidence. It will ultimately be for the jury to determine whether or not the evidence is sufficiently reliable to enable it to convict Mr Thomas on the arson charge. As matters stand, however, and in the absence of cross-examination of the eyewitnesses, I consider a properly directed jury could reasonably convict Mr Thomas on the arson charge. For that reason the application is dismissed.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland Counsel:

M N Pecotic, Auckland

1      R v Flyger [2001] 2 NZLR 721; Parris v Attorney-General [2004] 1 NZLR 519 at [14].