Howse v. R (New Zealand)

Link copied
Case Copied 56 min read
    Howse v. R (New Zealand) [2005] UKPC 31 (19 July 2005)

    ADVANCE COPY

    Privy Council Appeal No. 9 of 2005

    Bruce Thomas Howse Appellant

    v.

    The Queen Respondent

    FROM

    THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

    ---------------

    JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL

    COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,

    Delivered the 19th July 2005

    ------------------

    Present at the hearing:-

    Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

    Lord Hutton

    Lord Carswell
    Sir Andrew Leggatt
    Sir Swinton Thomas
    [Majority Judgment delivered by Lord Carswell]

    ------------------

  1. On 4 December 2002 the appellant Bruce Thomas Howse was convicted, after a lengthy trial before Goddard J and a jury, of the murder on 4 December 2001 of Saliel Jalassa Aplin and Olympia Marissa Jetson, aged respectively twelve and eleven years, daughters of his partner Charlene Aplin. On 18 December 2002 the judge sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life on each count, and ordered that he serve a minimum period of 28 years' imprisonment before he could be eligible for parole.
  2. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand against conviction and sentence. By a written judgment dated 7 August 2003 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, but reduced the minimum period which he was to serve to 25 years. The appellant has appealed, with special leave, to the Privy Council against the decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of his conviction.
  3. The two victims slept in a building at the rear of the family house known as a sleep-out, which had been converted from a garage. The pathologist's evidence was that each girl received a fatal wound with a single knife thrust. He said that Saliel would have died within a few minutes, whereas Olympia bled to death over a period which he estimated at 30 minutes to two hours. The motive for the killing attributed by the Crown to the appellant was that complaints had been made by the victims about sexual abuse carried out on them by the appellant and he killed them in order to silence them, then attempted to throw the blame elsewhere, first on some intruders and then on Charlene Aplin.
  4. Charlene Aplin's evidence was that she had gone to bed, leaving the appellant to complete some work on cupboard doors. She was wakened in the early hours by the appellant, who told her that he had been attacked by Polynesian males. His face was injured and his singlet was torn. Ms Aplin telephoned the police, the call being timed at 3.38 am. Police went to the scene with a tracker dog and there found the bodies of the children in the sleep-out, both in the room in which Saliel slept.
  5. The appellant was seen in the local hospital, where he repeated his account of an attack on him by several men. When Detective Constable Faraimo arrived at the hospital at about 5.45 am the appellant named a person who he alleged was behind the attack. DC Faraimo then informed him that the bodies…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Howse v. R (New Zealand) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2005] UKPC 31
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.