For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 61/2008 [2009] NZSC 41
SHANE EDWARD WILLIAMS
v
THE QUEEN
Hearing:26 February 2009
Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Wilson JJ
Counsel:L Cordwell for Appellant
B J Horsley and C J Curran for Crown
Judgment:15 May 2009
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
REASONS
(Given by Wilson J)
Introduction
[1] Mr Williams appeals against his conviction on a charge of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. He contends that there was undue delay in bringing him to trial, that his trial should have been stayed and that his conviction should therefore be set aside.
[2] Nearly five years elapsed between the arrest of Mr Williams in November 2002 and his conviction, following a fourth trial, in October 2007. Much of this delay was clearly unavoidable. The first trial could not proceed, initially because a co-accused did not appear and, when he was located, insufficient jurors were available. The second trial was aborted, after seven weeks, when a co-accused was approached by jurors. The third trial was aborted, after two weeks, when the admissibility of crucial Crown evidence was successfully challenged.
[3] Mr Cordwell, for the appellant, submits however that there were three periods of undue delay. First, ten months elapsed while five pre-deposition hearings were adjourned because tapes of telephone discussions had not been transcribed. Secondly, the Crown appealed on 4 October 2005 against the ruling excluding evidence in the third trial. The appeal was heard on 18 May 2006. On 29 November 2006 the Court of Appeal announced that the appeal would be allowed, with reasons to follow. These reasons followed on 7 March 2007, some 17 months after the appeal was filed. Thirdly, there was a further delay of more than five months after the reasons of the Court of Appeal became available before the fourth trial started on 27 August 2007.
[4] The appellant does not allege prosecutorial delay. Conversely, the Crown does not claim that the appellant contributed to the delay.
The application for a stay
[5] The appellant and a number of his co-accused applied to Asher J, prior to the fourth trial, for a stay of the proceedings against them because of what they claimed was the undue delay in bringing them to trial. The Judge found that there had been undue delay.[1] He refused however the applications of the appellant and two others, all of whom were charged with the manufacture of and conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, because of the seriousness of the alleged offending.[2] Asher J did grant a stay to seven other accused who were charged with less serious offending in that they were said to have assisted to some degree. Having been found guilty at trial on the conspiracy count, the appellant was sentenced by Asher J to four years six months’ imprisonment. The term reflected a discount of 18 months (or 25 per cent) from the sentence of six years’…
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 Williams v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Williams v R [2009] NZSC 41
Case
[2009] NZSC 41
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Shane Edward Williams appealed his conviction on a charge of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. He contended that the delay in bringing him to trial was undue and that the trial should have been stayed, leading to the setting aside of his conviction. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The court noted that nearly five years had elapsed between the arrest of Mr Williams and his conviction, with much of this delay being unavoidable due to various factors such as the unavailability of jurors and challenges to the admissibility of crucial evidence. The appellant argued that there were periods of undue delay, including the transcription of tapes and delays in the Court of Appeal's decision. However, the court found that the delay in its totality could not be justified, and Mr Williams was entitled to a remedy for this undue delay. The court found that a stay of proceedings was not the appropriate remedy in this case, as the seriousness of the alleged offending and the lack of fault on the part of the prosecution weighed against it. Instead, the court reduced Mr Williams' sentence by 18 months (or 25 per cent) to reflect the undue delay in bringing him to trial.
The final orders of the court were as follows: The appeal is dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant stand. The sentence is reduced by 18 months (or 25 per cent) to account for the undue delay in bringing the appellant to trial.