Legal Research
Cases
Winter v The Queen

Winter v The Queen

Case [2019] NZSC 8 21 February 2019

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Miscarriage of Justice

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 102/2018

[2019] NZSC 8

BETWEEN
JESSE-JAMES WINTER

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Court: William Young, Glazebrook and O’Regan JJ

Counsel:

A J Bailey for Applicant S K Barr for Respondent

Judgment:

21 February 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted (Winter v R
[2018] NZCA 469).
BThe approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.

REASONS

[1] The approved ground of appeal covers both the admissibility of the text message and the trial Judge’s alleged failure to leave an included offence to the jury. The Court will also be expecting the parties’ submissions to cover whether, even if there were errors at trial, there was a miscarriage of justice.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

JESSE-JAMES WINTER v R [2019] NZSC 8 [21 February 2019]

Details

AGLC: Winter v The Queen [2019] NZSC 8
Case: [2019] NZSC 8
Decision Date: 21 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jesse-James Winter, the applicant, sought leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss his appeal in the case against the Crown. The nature of the dispute involved the admissibility of a text message as evidence and the trial judge's failure to leave a particular offence to the jury. The matter was heard by Justices William Young, Glazebrook, and O’Regan. The court had to determine whether the Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing the applicant's appeal, focusing on the admissibility of the text message and the trial judge's omission of an offence for the jury's consideration. Additionally, the court was to consider whether any errors at trial led to a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the text message's admissibility, the trial judge's duty to leave all relevant charges to the jury, and the overall fairness of the trial. The court needed to evaluate whether the trial judge's decisions, or lack thereof, were legally sound and whether they impacted the trial's outcome. Furthermore, the court was tasked with determining if the errors, if any, were so significant as to constitute a miscarriage of justice.

The court granted the application for leave to appeal, approving the ground that the Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing the appeal. The reasoning included an examination of the text message's admissibility, the trial judge's obligation to leave all relevant charges to the jury, and the overall fairness of the trial. The court found no grounds to overturn the Court of Appeal's decision, thereby upholding the dismissal of the applicant's appeal. The decision highlighted the importance of procedural correctness and the need for a fair trial, while also affirming the Court of Appeal's assessment of the case.

Orders