Wilson v The Queen - [2019] NZSC 57

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 110/2018
[2019] NZSC 57

BETWEEN	REX LAWRENCE WILSON Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	E Huda for Applicant S K Barr for Respondent
Judgment:	18 June 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Mr Wilson was found guilty after trial of 15 charges of sexual offending against two girls who were in his care (he was a foster parent). His appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.[1] He seeks leave to appeal to this Court against conviction.

The proposed appeal

[1]Wilson v R [2018] NZCA 489 (Miller, Woolford and Collins JJ). The Crown’s appeal against Mr Wilson’s sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment was also dismissed. See also the sentencing notes of Judge Kellar: R v Wilson [2018] NZDC 7462.

Mr Wilson seeks leave to appeal on the basis that a miscarriage of justice has occurred and that the propriety of an aspect of the reasoning advanced by the prosecutor in closing gives rise to a question of general or public importance. In particular, Mr Wilson seeks to raise the following three arguments:
(a)The prosecutor in closing incorrectly said that Mr Wilson had only ever fostered two boys thereby bolstering in an improper manner the prosecution submission he had a sexual interest in young girls.
(b)The prosecutor in closing improperly gave his opinion about why one of the complainants was better placed to give her evidence in 2018 than she had been at the time she first made a complaint.
(c)The prosecutor wrongly suggested in closing that the complainants did not try to embellish, exaggerate or fill in gaps and improperly invited speculation as to what they might have said if inclined to give false testimony.
The first of these points relates to the following remarks made by the prosecutor in closing:
The state of mind, the Crown says, is to have a sexual interest in young females. That is something quite unusual and a striking feature of this case. Having regard to this, was it simply a coincidence that over the many years he fostered children for CYFS there were only ever two boys and the defendant had no issue with getting rid of one of the boys because he was violent but tolerated that exact behaviour from [K]?
This proposed ground of appeal was addressed by the Court of Appeal. The Court noted the appellant’s submission that the official records showed at least five boys stayed at the Wilson home over the years. The Court also observed there was “some evidential basis” for the prosecutor’s statement.[2] That evidence came from the complainant (K) in the context of questions as part of her evidence in chief about the living arrangements such as people coming and…

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 Wilson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wilson v The Queen [2019] NZSC 57
Case: [2019] NZSC 57
Decision Date: 18 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rex Lawrence Wilson v The Queen, the applicant, Mr Wilson, sought leave to appeal against his conviction for 15 charges of sexual offending against two girls in his care, who he was fostering. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed Mr Wilson’s appeal against conviction, and he now sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The Supreme Court considered whether the application for leave to appeal met the criteria for appeal, specifically whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred or if the appeal raised a question of general or public importance.

The legal issues before the court included whether the prosecutor's remarks during closing arguments were improper and whether these remarks constituted a miscarriage of justice or raised a question of general or public importance. The specific arguments raised by Mr Wilson were: (a) the prosecutor incorrectly stated that Mr Wilson had only ever fostered two boys, (b) the prosecutor gave an opinion on why one complainant was better placed to give her evidence in 2018 than in 2007, and (c) the prosecutor wrongly suggested that the complainants did not embellish or exaggerate their testimonies.

The Supreme Court found that the remarks made by the prosecutor were not material to the case and did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. The Court noted that the remarks were based on some evidential basis and were not critical to the prosecution’s case. Furthermore, the Court held that the other two proposed grounds of appeal did not raise questions of general or public importance but rather turned on the particular facts of the case. The court concluded that the criteria for leave to appeal were not met, and thus the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Orders