Winders v The Queen - [2018] NZSC 100

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 71/2018
[2018] NZSC 100

BETWEEN	QUINTON PAUL WINDERS Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	J P Temm for Applicant A Markham for Respondent
Judgment:	30 October 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant was convicted after a jury trial of the murder of George Taiaroa. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years.[1]
[1]R v Winders [2016] NZHC 2964 (Toogood J) [HC judgment].
He appealed against both conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal.[2] The Court dismissed the appeal. He now seeks leave to appeal to this Court against the Court of Appeal’s decision, again challenging his conviction and sentence.
[2]Winders v R [2018] NZCA 277 (Asher, Clifford and Gilbert JJ) [CA 2018 judgment].
Prior to the applicant’s trial, the High Court ruled that certain evidence was admissible at his trial, notwithstanding that some of this evidence had been obtained by actions of the police that were in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[3] An appeal against the decision that such evidence was admissible was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.[4]
[3]R v Winders [2016] NZHC 1147 (Toogood J) [HC pre-trial judgment].
[4]Winders v R [2016] NZCA 350 (French, Collins and Fogarty JJ) [CA 2016 judgment].
Leave to appeal is sought in relation to four issues.
The first issue concerns evidence obtained by the police in an interview with the applicant after he was arrested for reckless driving. Toogood J found that the sole reason for the arrest was to question the applicant about the alleged murder, and that his arrest and subsequent detention were in breach of s 22 of the Bill of Rights Act.[5] During the interview the applicant answered questions about the alleged murder, but made no confession. He did, however, make statements about his movements on the day of the murder, which the Crown relied on at trial to show that he had lied about those movements.
[5]HC pre-trial judgment, above n 3, at [109] and [111].
Toogood J found there was no causative link between the improper police conduct and the making of the statements by the applicant. In the absence of such a causative link, he found the evidence was admissible.[6] He also found that, even if he were wrong on that point, the evidence would be admissible under the balancing process set out in s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.[7] Those findings were upheld by the Court of Appeal in the pre-trial appeal[8] and the Court of Appeal declined to revisit that finding when considering the applicant’s conviction appeal.[9]
[6]At [130].
[7]At [136].
[8]CA 2016 judgment, above n 4, at [53]–[58], citing R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68, [2018] 1 NZLR 26 at [46]–[47].
[9]CA 2018 judgment, above n 2, at [57].
We do not…

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 Winders v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Winders v The Queen [2018] NZSC 100
Case: [2018] NZSC 100
Decision Date: 30 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quinton Paul Winders sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for the murder of George Taiaroa, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court was asked to consider four issues, including the admissibility of statements made during an improper police interview, the probative value of propensity evidence, the handling of a jury communication concerning the foreperson, and the appropriateness of a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment. The Court found that the first three issues raised no point of public importance and saw no appearance of a miscarriage in the way the Court of Appeal dealt with them. Regarding the sentence, the Court acknowledged that a reduction in sentence may be appropriate in certain cases as a remedy for a breach of the Bill of Rights Act, but deemed it inappropriate in this case due to the requirements of the Sentencing Act. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

This case highlights the Supreme Court's cautious approach in granting leave to appeal, particularly when the issues raised do not present a point of public importance or do not demonstrate a risk of miscarriage of justice. The Court's decision in this case reinforces the importance of adhering to the established legal principles and legislative requirements when considering appeals against conviction and sentence. Furthermore, it emphasises the Court's role in balancing the rights of the accused with the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Orders