tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-80661822024-03-19T19:46:40.570+13:00Criminal Law Casebook - Developments in leading appellate courtsAimed at promoting the study of technical aspects of criminal law and procedure, this site considers selected cases from the top appeal courts of Australia, Canada, the UK, the USA, the European Court of Human Rights and New Zealand. From August 2004 there have been approximately 780 entries, including book reviews.Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comBlogger787125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-45959516406134963862024-03-19T17:10:00.003+13:002024-03-19T19:46:09.620+13:00The meaning of "and": Pulsifer v United States USSC 22-340<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">When a statutory exception is followed by a list of conditions, a court may have to decide whether the list is conjunctive or disjunctive. That is, must all the conditions be satisfied before the exception applies, or need only an individual condition be satisfied for the exception to apply?</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This problem split the Supreme Court of the United States 6-3 in <i>Pulsifer v United States</i> <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-340_p86a.pdf" style="font-style: normal;" target="_blank">USSC 22-340</a> (15 March 2024).</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">At issue was an exception to protection against imposition of a statutory minimum sentence. It was an issue that mattered “profoundly”, affecting the lives and liberty of thousands of individuals (per Gorsich J, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson JJ for the minority).</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">For lawyers, the point of construction at issue has an entertainment value that belies its seriousness. It is worth reading the provision first (set out in the Appendix to the judgment of the Court), to see what you think is its ordinary and natural meaning.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The majority, in a judgment delivered by Kagan J, did not consider that the provision was genuinely ambiguous, notwithstanding that, viewed in the abstract, two readings were grammatically permissible. Therefore the rule of lenity (which would favour the construction that was most favourable to a defendant) had no role here. The interpretation argued for on behalf of Mr Pulsifer, said the majority, created “glaring superfluity”. Considered in its legal context, the text must be construed to avoid superfluity, and further, the exception to liability for a minimum sentence must as a matter of policy reflect the (relative lack of) seriousness of defendants’ criminal records.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In the majority’s opinion, Mr Pulsifer”s argument was that to be included in the exception from protection against imposition of the minimum penalty a defendant would have to meet all three conditions, but this would mean that if conditions 2 and 3 were met, condition 1 would be superfluous.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The minority disagreed with this claim of superfluity as it depended on how prior offenses were counted, and held that the policy justification could not overcome the plain meaning of the text.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Anyway, students of statutory construction should read this case, if only for entertainment (but remembering the minority’s observation that statutes aren’t games or puzzles).</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Fifty-nine and a half pages on the meaning of “and”. Who could resist?</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><br /></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-38248552379331786542024-03-17T11:32:00.003+13:002024-03-17T17:12:27.856+13:00Dealing with jury misconduct: Campbell v R (No 2) (Jamaica) [2024] UKPC 6<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Dealing with the risk that a jury was “poisoned” (so to speak) <span style="color: #fb0207;">[1]</span>) by misbehaviour was the topic considered in <i>Campbell v R (No 2)</i> (Jamaica) <a href="https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2024/6.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2024] UKPC 6</span></a>.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The difficulty for the trial judge in this case was that at the closing stage of a lengthy and complex (and necessarily expensive) trial a concern was raised that attempts had been made by one juror to bribe others - the number was not clear - to acquit the defendants. Could this risk be avoided by judicial management?</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Board held that the measures taken here had not been sufficient [44]-[45]. The defendants’ fundamental right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial court had been infringed. The judge’s duty was </span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="color: #0c61ab; font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">“to ensure a fair trial. In order to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice it is necessary to do justice to both prosecution and defence so that the guilty may be convicted and the innocent acquitted.”<span style="color: black;"> [47]</span></span></p></blockquote><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">So the party that may have been prejudiced (the prosecution) could not waive the misconduct.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The judge should have considered whether there was “a real risk” that jurors may have been consciously or unconsciously prejudiced for or against one or more of the defendants [48]-[53].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Here the verdicts were returned by a jury that was not a fair and impartial tribunal of fact, so there was no room for application of the proviso. [55]</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">It was for the local courts to decide whether a retrial should be ordered [63]-[64].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">________________________________</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #fb0207;">[1]</span> Borrowing at [48]-[51] the language of Bingham LJ in <i>R v Putnam</i> (1991) 93 Cr App R 281, 286-287.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Times; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-14084647082220566582024-03-13T19:58:00.000+13:002024-03-13T19:58:29.585+13:00 The Australian common law of duress: The King v Anna Rowan (A Pseudonym) [2024] HCA 9<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Is it right in principle to require, for the defence of duress, that the threat be accompanied by a demand that a particular offence be committed?</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">And can the threat be implied from the circumstances, or must it be an express threat?</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Australian common law was considered in <i>The King v Anna Rowan (A Pseudonym)</i> <a href="http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2024/9.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2024] HCA 9</span></a>.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In a joint judgment Gageler CJ, Gordon, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ held that Australian common law of duress does indeed require that the threat included a requirement or demand that the defendant commit the acts that constitute the offence charged [53]. Also, the threat and the demand can be unstated but implied from the circumstances [55], [57]. Here, the Court of Appeal had not made the mistake of moving away from the established common law of duress, which was the Crown’s concern, and, as there had been sufficient evidence at voir dire to raise duress as a live issue, this appeal against the Court of Appeal’s reversal of the judge’s decision was dismissed.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Edelman J concurred in the result but suggested a principled development of the Australian common law. He argued that there is no basis for a distinction between threats made by a human person and threats from other sources [84]. This is so, notwithstanding that duress and necessity are separate, and neither party here sought their unification [86]-[87]. Also, although neither party submitted that a demand directed at the commission of a particular offence was unnecessary, such a demand is not needed [98].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The requirement for a demand that a particular offence (the offence charged) be committed to avoid the threatened acts is contrary to principle [106]. Here, the point being made appears to be that if the defence of duress was only available for the demanded offence, a defendant who found a way to avoid the threatened action by committing a lesser offence would not have the defence of duress for that lesser offence. Indeed, continued Edelman J, there need not be any demand for an offence to be committed, as where the defendant drove dangerously to avoid threats of violence from a dangerous mob [107].</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-88359906886420178532024-03-09T16:39:00.006+13:002024-03-12T15:17:33.467+13:00Common sense in assessments of the credibility and reliability of witnesses in judge-alone trials: R v Kruk, 2024 SCC 7<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In judge-alone trials, the judge must give reasons for the verdict. This obligation creates difficulties for the judge, especially around adequately explaining reasons for assessments of the credibility and reliability of witnesses. There can be a tendency for judges to refer to their common sense and their experience of the ways of the world. This might lead to a departure from the evidence in the case. How should an appellate court determine whether the judge has reasoned lawfully?</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This was the central question in <i>R v Kruk</i>, <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2024/2024scc7/2024scc7.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">2024 SCC 7</span></a>.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Court unanimously rejected a rule-based approach called “the rule against ungrounded common-sense assumptions” [1].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">There were numerous reasons for that rejection, but of more general interest is the articulation(s) of the correct appellate approach to judicial assumptions not supported (or controverted) by evidence.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Two judgments were delivered, with Rowe J agreeing in the results of these appeals (in two unrelated cases) but setting out the analysis he prefers. How different is this from that of the other judges - Wagner CJ, Coté, Martin, Kasirer Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ - in their joint judgment?</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The joint judgment sets out “the existing and well-established law on assessing a trial judge’s credibility or reliability assessments” at [93]-[99]. As their summary is given “for the utmost clarity” [93], it seems pointless to summarize their summary.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">But in asking whether Rowe J’s approach is different, comparison of [93]-[99] with [129]-[132] is necessary. He describes the issue in these terms: “These two appeals ask how appellate courts should review trial judges’ reliance on generalized expectations based on common sense and human experience in the fact-finding process” [128]. Broadly, appellate courts need to be sure that what the judge <i>relied </i>on was indeed a generalized expectation and not an assessment of evidence in the case ([130] - this is what the joint judgment says at [94]), then, if reliance had been placed on a generalized expectation, ask whether that expectation was reasonable ([131] - here the joint judgment at [95] diverts to address unreasonable assumptions and to consider how these should be reviewed on appeal [96]-[97]), and if it was reasonable, ask whether it was used to <i>replace</i> evidence instead of being a benchmark for assessing the evidence ([132] and here the joint judgment follows an identification of error by asking whether it was “palpable” in the sense that it affected the result or went to the very core of the outcome of the case [98]).</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">One kind of error is an error of law, and the standard for review is simply whether the judge got the law right [96]. Examples of this open-ended category are given at [96]. If the error was not one of law, the standard for review is whether the error was palpable and overriding, and examples are given at [97].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">A case that was overruled in <i>Kruk</i> provides a quite amusing (at least, I think so) illustration of how absurd it is to require generalizations that are advanced to support credibility and reliability findings to be grounded in evidence: <i>R v JC</i>, 2018 ONSC 5547. See <i>Kruk</i> per Rowe J at [211]-[213], and the joint judgment at [21]-[23]. Absurd, because “The Crown cannot be expected to elicit evidence on how sexual encounters ordinarily unfold in every sexual assault trial before a trial judge can rely on their common sense or human experience with respect to human sexual behaviour” [211].</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-60560150996054443102024-03-08T12:30:00.002+13:002024-03-08T12:30:18.468+13:00New offence or improved old offence? Xerri v The King [2024] HCA 5<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">It is not unusual for legislation defining an offence to be changed, and a question may arise as to whether the change creates a new offence, or whether the original offence (the predecessor offence) was merely reformulated, refined or improved.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This was the issue in <i>Xerri v The King</i> <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2024/5.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2024] HCA 5</span></a>, as stated by Gageler CJ and Jagot J at [14], and by Gordon, Steward and Gleeson JJ at [41]. If the change did not create a new offence but, inter alia, increased the maximum penalty, an offender would have the benefit of the lesser penalty if the offending occurred before the change (this rule is embodied in the legislation referred to at [7] and [41]).</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether a change is so radical as to create a new offence can be a difficult question, the answer only seeming simple once it has been decided in a court of final appeal. Here, it seems that after the hearing of the appeal in the High Court the Crown (the ultimate winner) was not confident of victory, and it was given leave to file supplementary submissions [37], [68]. These did not need to be addressed.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In comparing the old with the new versions it is necessary to focus on the substance, rather than the form, of the provisions [15]. Here, Gageler CJ and Jagot J listed six substantial differences between the provisions ([16]-[21]), and Gordon, Steward and Gleeson JJ listed eight ([60]). The Court was unanimous in deciding that a new offence had been created, that the increased maximum penalty applied, and the appeal was dismissed.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The reasons for the change in legislation assisted in explaining why this was a new offence. References to a report by a Royal Commission, and to explanations in the Second Reading debate provided useful context.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Several problems were addressed by the new provisions. For example - and all this was about sexual offending by adults against children - it could be difficult for complainants to say precisely when alleged offending occurred, juries might not agree that all of several allegations were proved, historical sentencing patterns might now seem inappropriately lenient, and defendants should not benefit from their own delaying tactics in progressing cases to trial. Accordingly, the new law requires proof of an unlawful sexual relationship, and a jury need not be unanimous about which alleged incidents occurred when deciding whether there had been such a relationship. The new maximum penalty applies, whether the relationship occurred before, during or after the commencement of the new legislation.</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-60963246899158417122024-03-02T12:37:00.002+13:002024-03-04T09:57:07.305+13:00How private is an IP address? R v Bykovets, 2024 SCC 6<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">How private is an IP address?</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Is it like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime? Of itself it says nothing until matched with other information. No one has privacy rights in respect of fingerprints they may leave on things.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Or is an IP address as private as the information to which it is linked?</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether there is privacy in an IP address is a difficult question. The strong dissent of four justices in <i>R v Bykovets</i>, <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2024/2024scc6/2024scc6.html" target="_blank">2024 SCC 6 </a>demonstrates how vexed this is.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Wagner CJ, with Coté J (who delivered the joint dissenting judgment), Rowe and O’Bonsawin JJ made the fingerprint point at [154]. Their judgment focuses on the circumstances of the present case and recognises that on different facts a person might have a reasonable expectation of privacy [159]. Further, the Court’s jurisdiction is confined to questions of law arising from the facts as they are, not as they might be [161]-[162]. Consistent with this is the circumscribed role that interveners can have [163]. In essence, held the minority, the majority answer a question that was not asked [164]. Of most significance to the difference between the judges is the majority’s inclusion in the subject matter of the privacy question every step leading to the ultimate identification of the suspect notwithstanding that the IP address alone does not go that far [138].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Karakatsanis J delivered the majority judgment of herself and Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and Moreau JJ. For what an IP address does, see [4]. One asks, what were the police really after? An holistic approach must be taken in answering this [34]. The privacy interests are intense [60]-[70]. These outweigh the burden on the police of having to obtain search warrants [86].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Both judgments accepted that the approach is normative (see [120] for what this means). So the question is not determined by whether an individual has a low expectation of privacy (for example because of having a suspicious nature). Instead, the determination is about what expectation of privacy a person should have. The difference is in over what the judges considered was a reasonable expectation of privacy (for the dissenters, in the circumstances of this case [141]-[158], for the majority, generally [44]-[70]).</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This was a case about credit card fraud. The minority saw no reasonable expectation of privacy as to IP address in that context. In what context might the minority have held that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy? The significant point here is that here the IP address did not reveal core biographical information [148], while on other facts it might. The important thing about the context seems to be, not the offence being investigated but the extent to which core biographical information is revealed.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The majority's teleological approach to the issue - addressing the purpose of the search - is consistent with the development of the common law in the interests of the community, whereas the minority's narrower perspective is a case law application of legislation to the facts of the instant case. The distinction between common law and case law (not a universally recognised distinction, but useful nevertheless) is illustrated here.</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-63338880060976833832024-02-22T11:46:00.003+13:002024-02-26T16:54:00.455+13:00The finality of acquittals in jury trials: McElrath v Georgia 22-721 USSC<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Acquittals are final, even if they might be based on flawed reasoning: <i>McElrath v Georgia</i> <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-721_kjfl.pdf"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">22-721 USSC </span></a>(21 February 2024). <span style="color: red;">[1]</span></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Authorities referred to in this case make the following points. An acquittal by a jury ends a defendant’s jeopardy. A jury’s verdict of acquittal cannot be reviewed and this is the most fundamental aspect of double jeopardy jurisprudence. An acquittal is a ruling that the prosecution’s proof is insufficient to establish criminal liability. A jury’s verdict of not guilty on the grounds of insanity is such a ruling. It does not matter if this verdict is accompanied by an apparently inconsistent verdict on another charge; an acquittal is still an acquittal. Any judicial speculation about the jury’s reasons for a verdict of acquittal would impermissably usurp the jury’s right to have its deliberations free from such scrutiny. This remains so, while it has long been recognized that a jury’s verdict may be the result of compromise, compassion, lenity, or misunderstanding of the law. The inviolability of a jury’s verdict of acquittal is a bright-line rule that exists to preserve the jury’s overriding responsibility to stand between the accused and those who command the criminal sanction.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">___________________________</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: red; font-style: normal;">[1]</span> There can be statutory exceptions to the finality of acquittals. For example, see the Criminal Code of Canada,<a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-686.html" style="font-style: normal;"> s 686(4)</a>. Acquittals are not lightly overturned under this provision: <i>R v Sutton</i>, <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc50/2000scc50.html?resultIndex=1&resultId=44b1bf5db4754b0480487f3c0ace5602&searchId=2024-02-26T16:15:06:389/6b397ded97a94966a7296d6776bf2386" style="font-style: normal;">2000 SCC 50</a>, and see <i>R v Khill</i>, <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2021/2021scc37/2021scc37.html?resultIndex=1&resultId=f331b31f6f3547428894f02d68c47b6c&searchId=2024-02-26T16:33:54:871/7a5e11670dc4423da512ac25c6657787" target="_blank">2021 SCC 37</a>. In New Zealand an appeal on a question of law does not include a question that arose from a jury verdict, Criminal Procedure Act 2011, <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360484.html?search=ad_act__criminal+procedure____25_ac%40bn%40rn%40dn%40apub%40aloc%40apri%40apro%40aimp%40bgov%40bloc%40bpri%40bmem%40rpub%40rimp_ac%40ainf%40anif%40bcur%40rinf%40rnif_a_aw_se_&p=1" target="_blank">s 296(4)(a)</a>.</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-26193964714105000282024-02-15T11:34:00.001+13:002024-02-15T11:34:11.778+13:00Agreement, knowledge and liability: statutory construction in R v Rohan (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 3<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">If you agree with someone to commit an offence, how much do you need to know?</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">You don’t need to know that the proposed course of conduct is unlawful, because ignorance of the law is no excuse.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">But you do need to know what conduct is proposed and you also need to have the state of mind required by the definition of the offence.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Not all offences require knowledge or recklessness as to the existence of all the physical facts that have to be proved to establish liability.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">For example, an offence of supplying a controlled drug to a person who is under a specified age. Liability need not, depending on the definition of the offence, require proof that the defendant knew of the recipient’s age. There might, again depending on the relevant legislation, be a defence of reasonable belief that the person was over the specified age.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Again, an offence of sexually penetrating a person who is under a specified age need not require proof that the defendant knew of the person’s age. There may, again depending on the legislation, not be a defence of reasonable mistake as to the person’s age.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">These two types of offences were considered in the context of the law of the State of Victoria in <i>R v Rohan </i>(a pseudonym) <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2024/3.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2024] HCA 3</span></a>.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Gageler CJ, Gordon and Edelman JJ referred to the starting point for interpreting a statutory provision: the text and its context in the widest sense, including its historical context, and its purpose [25].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Attention centred on s 323(1)(c) of the Crimes Act, (see [13]) and also s 323(3)(b) (see [14]), and it was noted that liability in this case depends on agreement [29]. The state of mind required of the people who agree to commit an offence is the state of mind required for commission of the agreed offence [31].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Here, knowledge of the ages of the people who received the cannabis, and knowledge of the age of the person who was sexually penetrated, did not need to be proved for liability [32]. It was sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the defendants entered into the agreement while intending that the cannabis be received by the specified persons, and that they intended that the specified person should be sexually penetrated [33], [34].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 16px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Gleeson and Jagot JJ concurred, referring at [62] to statutory construction assisted by reference to parliamentary material, and to the statutory context [68], [69]. The agreement to commit an offence places the parties to the agreement in the same position regarding the requirements for their liability [73], so it was only necessary that the parties agreed on the specific people in respect of whom the offences were to be committed [74].</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-36783290373623549462024-02-12T13:31:00.005+13:002024-02-12T18:52:43.402+13:00Sovereignty and the common law<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In a recent opinion piece <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350173571/we-need-better-judges-writes-damien-grant"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">published by Stuff</span></a>, Damien Grant has raised questions about parliamentary sovereignty and the common law.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">He asks, “Does Parliament have the right to order a citizen be tortured?’</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Here, “right” probably means the power to enact legislation that will be accepted as law. <span style="color: #e6000e;">[1]</span></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Acceptance is everything. Parliament only has the power to make laws because our community accepts that it should. <span style="color: #e6000e;">[2]</span> This power has its origins in a recognition in common law that this is the best way we can devise of ordering our society - and that this is a political reality.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The real consequence, if Parliament ordered that a citizen could be tortured, would be civil disorder and potentially civil war. Parliament lacks the power to make such an order because it needs to survive.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">When we speak of the “lawful” powers of Parliament, we really mean the politically acceptable powers. There are many everyday limits on Parliament’s powers, because the government, having the (currently, in coalition) majority in Parliament, wants to be re-elected.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">To think that “law” is anything that Parliament could ever be imagined to enact, is to adhere to what would now be regarded as an absurd notion of sovereignty. True enough, the idea of sovereignty may originally have been thought of as a power to do anything, but society - conscious of its power at the ballot box to sweep aside its representatives - would no longer accept such omnipotence.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Are judges activists, if what they are doing is recognising the changing ideas that society accepts about how disputes should be resolved? There is nothing activist about recognising that the common law changes in response to what is currently perceived as the best way of doing things. <span style="color: #e6000e;">[3]</span></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Judges would be activist if, instead of accepting current ideas, they were to impose their own ideas in advance of social change. The real debate is about whether the judges are imposing their own ideas or whether they are responding to ideas the community recognises as the best way forward.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">It is correct to say that if the judges overreach, Parliament can step in and pass appropriate legislation. In doing so, Parliament must - as a matter of political reality - not undermine “the respect and moral authority” that is the real source of its power to make laws. Parliamentary overreach is not, in reality, much different from judicial overreach.<span style="color: #e6000e;"> [4]</span></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I am not persuaded by Mr Grant’s article that the judges have been reckless, or that they have undermined the respect in which they are held or the moral authority of their judgments, or that “we need better judges”.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 15px;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The close interrelationship between politics and law <span style="color: #e6000e;">[5] </span>suggests the following answer to whether Parliament could authorise torture: if such a “law” passed the formal requirements for recognition as law, its status as law could only be completed by its acceptance by the courts and by the community. And whether the courts will recognise that they have the power to rule on the legal status of such a “law” depends on the extent to which they modify the common law’s requirements for the validity of laws to meet the needs of the community.</span></p><div><br /></div><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">_______________________________</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #e6000e;">[1]</span> Salmond, in “Jurisprudence”, observed that source of the status of acts of Parliament as “law” is historical, not legal: “… It is the law because it is the law, and for no other reason that it is possible for the law to take notice of.” Law is only law because it is made in a way that society accepts: see John Gardner, “Law as a Leap of Faith” (for my review of this book dated 6 July 2013, click <a href="https://nzcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2013/07/book-review-law-as-leap-of-faith-by.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">here</span></a>). See also Tom Bingham, “The Rule of Law”, p166: “… it has been convincingly shown [referring to HLA Hart, “The Concept of Law”, Ch 10] that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty has been recognized as fundamental in this country not because the judges invented it but because it has for centuries been accepted as such by judges and others officially concerned in the operation of our constitutional system. The judges did not by themselves establish the principle and they cannot, by themselves, change it.” Lord Bingham concluded that the constitutional system has become unbalanced as a result of reduction of the legislative power of the Crown and of the House of Lords, and that this is a serious problem. </span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #e6000e;">[2]</span> The first limitation of royal powers, the Magna Carta of 1215, was acceded to by King John as a politically expedient step. Further politically expedient steps occurred in the seventeenth century when Parliamentary supremacy was established by the enactment and royal acceptance of the Bill of Rights of 1688 (Julian date). The growth of democracy since then has constrained parliament’s powers, as has also, as a matter of political reality, ratification of international human rights conventions.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #e6000e;">[3]</span> “The common law” originally referred to what circuit judges appointed by Henry II found to be the best way of ordering affairs, drawn from the various approaches in the counties and which was subsequently consolidated in the Year Books from 1268, beginning under the reign of Edward I. The common law was thus responsive to social needs.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #e6000e;">[4]</span> Throughout much of New Zealand’s history, the common law did not reflect the interests of the Māori peoples. See Paul Rishworth, “Writing things unwritten: Common Law in New Zealand’s Constitution” <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mow005">https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mow005</a> . In <i>Ellis v R</i> [2022] NZSC 114 the Court recognised that it could not change Māori customary practices (tikanga) but that tikanga will continue to be “recognised in the development of the common law … in cases where it is relevant.” Since the thirteenth century there is nothing novel about the surveying of cultural ideas in search of the best way forward for the law.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #e6000e;">[5] </span>Ronald Dworkin came to accept, in “Justice for Hedgehogs” (for my April 25, 2011 review, click <a href="https://nzcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2011/04/book-review-justice-for-hedgehogs-by.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">here</span></a>), that law is a branch of politics, and politics in turn develops from ethical standards, so there may be “valid laws” that are too immoral to enforce.</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-69748919648413059492024-01-28T20:03:00.005+13:002024-02-05T08:49:59.909+13:00Stays of proceedings in the residual category - analyzing multiple alleged rights breaches: R v Brunelle, 2024 SCC 3<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">If a defendant would not have exercised a right that was breached, can a stay of proceedings be ordered arising from the breach?</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether stays of proceedings could be available on the ground that official misconduct undermined the integrity of the justice system where a police operation involved the simultaneous arrest of several people at different locations without giving all of them proper access to legal advice, was considered in <i>R v Brunelle</i>, <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2024/2024scc3/2024scc3.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">2024 SCC 3</span></a>.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Not all the defendants had been denied timely access to legal advice, and some didn’t want legal advice, but the procedure adopted by the police had become standard practice. If that practice did undermine the integrity of the justice system, could it require a stay of proceedings for some, or all, of the defendants?</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">O’Bonsawin J, delivering the leading judgment (Rowe J agreed but offered some clarification), noted that the Canadian law on abuse of process is well settled [27]. Here, the concern is with what is called the “residual category” of abuse of process, which is abuse that does not compromise trial fairness but which nevertheless undermines the integrity of the justice system. The novelty of the questions in this case is referred to at [30].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>What are the requirements for standing? Standing means having the right to apply for the relief sought. <span style="color: #0c61ab;">“To have standing, the accused must allege that the abusive conduct tainted the </span></span><span style="color: #0c61ab;">police investigation or operation targeting them or the court proceedings against them.”</span><span> [39] Of course, an allegation has to be proved, and failure to prove taint here will result in failure to show standing. Taint of the proceedings is sufficient, and personal prejudice is not required [49]. The connection between the misconduct and the taint must be a sufficient causal connection [54], as where it occurred in the course of the investigation or police operation targeting the defendant [56]. The defendant must satisfy the court that continuation of the proceedings against them individually would in itself do further harm to the integrity of the justice system [59].</span></span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Once standing is established, the issue of whether there would be an abuse of process in the residual category arising from the continuation of the proceedings can be considered [65].</span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In this appeal several breaches of the <a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">Canadian Charter</span></a> were alleged to constitute abuse of process when considered together. The main specific breach was alleged to be of s 10(b), the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right. And the general right in s 7 to life, liberty and security of the person was also relied on by the defendants. To a lesser extent, the right in s 8 to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure was also relied on. The case law had established a way, or framework, for analyzing each, and the question was, how should these frameworks inter-relate? This is where Rowe J offers clarification: the specific right should be addressed first, and the more general right should only be addressed if no breach of the more specific one was proved [129] (cf [75], where the framework for analyzing the more general right is applied to get an overall perspective on whether abuse of process has been established).</span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Once an abuse of process has been established, and a stay of proceedings is sought, an important requirement is that there should be no other appropriate remedy for the abuse of process. For example, in some cases exclusion of tainted evidence might be a sufficient remedy. The need for an absence of adequate alternative remedy reflects the stay as a remedy that is only given in the clearest of cases [113]. The three requirements, set out there, are that continuation of the proceedings would prejudice either the defendant’s right to a fair trial or the integrity of the justice system, that there is no alternative remedy capable of redressing the prejudice, and that if these considerations do not answer whether a stay should be granted then the court must balance the interests in favour of granting a stay against the interest that society has in a having a final decision on the merits.</span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I must say I find it odd that this third consideration treats the preservation of the integrity of the justice system as a matter that can be balanced, or compromised. The question should be, what is required to preserve the integrity of the justice system - denunciation of the official misconduct or a final determination of the question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence?</span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Anyway, because of errors at first instance the Supreme Court ordered new hearings on the motions for stay of proceedings and for exclusion of evidence [110].</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-61332808836984583452024-01-27T19:59:00.006+13:002024-02-05T09:13:47.976+13:00Appellate review of grounds for prosecution: Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v Harridath Maharaj [2024] UKSC 1<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Privy Council’s recent consideration of the tort of malicious prosecution is of some interest to criminal lawyers insofar as it considers the proper appellate approach to the different issues of malice and the sufficiency of grounds for prosecution: <i>Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v Harridath Maharaj</i> <a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2024/1.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2024] UKPC 1 </span></a>(25 January 2024).</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether the prosecutor was motivated by malice is a question of fact, which would only have needed to be considered here if there were insufficient grounds for the bringing of the prosecution or if bringing the prosecution was unreasonable in the circumstances. Sufficiency and reasonableness are matters to be assessed by evaluative assessment. On questions of fact, an appellate court will assess the record of the evidence as best it can, and will endeavour to make up its own mind about what the facts were [64]. This is a process that in New Zealand we call evaluative judgement. <span style="color: red;">[1]</span> But on the sufficiency and reasonableness issue, which was the issue in this appeal, the appellate court will recognise that reasonable minds may differ, and the appeal is analysed by way of review [66]. Here, the grounds for prosecuting were, after analysis, found to be sufficient and the decision to prosecute was reasonable [77], so the question of malice did not need to be considered by the Board (and in any event there was nothing on the record to suggest malice) [79]. The reasonableness aspect of the decision to prosecute is summarised in the recognition that the prosecutor viewed the available evidence with proper caution and took into account evidence in favour of the defendant [77].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This appeal illustrates how different issues are analysed in different ways on appeal.<span style="color: #e6000e;"> [2] </span>Here, the logical structure put the issue that required review (or what the Board calls “evaluative assessment”) before the issue - which did not need to be considered in this appeal - of fact, namely whether the prosecutor acted maliciously. As far as the tort of malicious prosecution is concerned, if there are proper grounds for a prosecution and the decision to prosecute is reasonable then the plaintiff fails. If there had not been proper grounds to prosecute, or if the decision to prosecute had been unreasonable, the issue would have been whether the prosecutor had acted maliciously.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Often, the logical structure will be the other way around: facts before discretion, as where a factual threshold has to be satisfied before a discretion is exercised.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">_______________________________________</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #e6000e;">[1] </span>I use the spelling judgement because that’s a way to distinguish between the process and the result. The reasonableness of the decision to prosecute is subject to appellate review. This is clear at [66]. Whether the decision to prosecute was supported by reasonable and probable cause is an issue that requires what the Board calls assessment, and this is different from the exercise of determining a fact. I call the former a discretion because it is analysed on appeal by way of review, and the latter an evaluative judgement because on appeal the analysis is of the sort described at [64]. "Review" and "evaluative judgement" are both terms currently applicable to the differing analyses in New Zealand case law. Usually a prosecutor's discretion is confined within narrow limits, but for some offences an alternative to prosecution, such as diversion, may require consideration and the discretion is more obvious.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #e6000e;">[2]</span> No one claims that it is always easy to distinguish between appeals against determinations of fact (often classified as general appeals) and appeals against exercises of discretion: <i>Kacem v Bashir</i> <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZSC/2010/112.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2010] NZSC 112</span></a> at [32]. But there is nothing that is in this context discretionary about fact finding: deciding what evidence to accept is a matter of judgement.</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-47005869648904735252023-12-13T12:03:00.000+13:002023-12-13T12:03:25.823+13:00A free pdf of the first collection of entries on this site<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">As we drift gently towards August 2024, which will be the 20th anniversary of the start of this site, and will also be its termination, I am preparing collections of these entries for free download as pdf files. This is because we cannot be sure how long sites such as this one will continue to exist once they are no longer updated.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The first file covers entries from August 2004 to August 2009. It includes a Table of Contents and Index, and also copies of the draft papers linked on this site. It is best viewed in its A4 format.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Eventually, there will be another file for the remainder of the entries, and a separate Index file for all the entries.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Here is <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/15AnRQZLdeyVAzFPed4tR3p__NWzBW-_J/view?usp=sharing"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">the link</span></a> to the download for the first volume.</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-13435905409256935302023-12-06T16:26:00.004+13:002023-12-22T17:14:36.110+13:00Jury directions as exercises in comprehension: Huxley v The Queen [2023] HCA 40<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">It is a commonplace observation that people who are good at reading might come to different interpretations of the same text.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Also, it is not unusual in a joint trial for different defendants to react differently to the evidence of a witness. The witness might give evidence that incriminates one defendant while exculpating another.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Both these points are illustrated in <i>Huxley v The Queen</i> <a href="http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2023/40.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2023] HCA 40.</span></a></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The trial judge had thought that it would be “madness … leading to total confusion” and “gibberish” [17] to require the jury to apply different standards of proof to the evidence of a witness depending on which defendant’s case they are considering.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The judge was so plainly wrong about that, I suggest, that it is surprising that the prosecutor (who would be just as concerned as defence counsel that the trial should be conducted according to law) did not offer a suggestion to avoid the possibility of any error by the judge when directing the jury.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The point was that when considering the evidence which was central to the prosecutor’s case the jury had to be satisfied of its truth beyond reasonable doubt, but when considering the same evidence as part of the case for a co-defendant they had only to ask whether it raised a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of that co-defendant.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The judge got the first requirement right, and this appeal was about the question of law as to whether the second requirement was satisfied upon a consideration of the summing up as a whole.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This comprehension exercise produced different answers, the Court splitting 2-3. The majority, Gordon, Steward and Gleeson JJ, held that the judge had made no error of law and the appeal was dismissed. The minority, Gageler CJ and Jagot J, considered that the error had been made and that there should have been a new trial. The majority placed significance on the absence of any request by defence counsel for a re-direction [92]ff. The point had been raised in chambers before the evidence in the trial had been concluded, and defence counsel may have thought the judge had ruled on the point [29].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">It is at that early stage, when the potential difficulty was raised in chambers before the conclusion of all the evidence, that help from the prosecutor could have ensured a clear judicial direction and avoided the need for this appeal.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The use of question trails (setting out questions for the jury to answer among themselves as they work towards verdicts) could have helped avoid confusion here. Was the jury in a position to consider “as a whole” (heading at [68]) a summing up that lasted from the middle of one day to the late afternoon of the next day [18]? If not, is the more leisurely consideration of a transcript of the summing up - here extending to 93 pages - by appellate judges, relevant? Are juries better at comprehension than appellate judges? If five senior judges can't agree on understanding the summing up, should we expect 12 jurors to have agreed on it?</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-41540401298938567482023-12-02T19:46:00.011+13:002023-12-15T17:47:09.685+13:00The admissibility consequences of a breach of rights: R v Zacharias, 2023 SCC 30<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">To what extent are rights a shield for offending?</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Does a breach of the right not to be arbitrarily detained have admissibility consequences in relation to subsequent police activity such as search, arrest, further search, and further detention? Is the propriety of these subsequent events tainted by the initial breach?</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In <i>R v Zacharias</i>, <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2023/2023scc30/2023scc30.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">2023 SCC 30 </span></a>the majority held, 4-1, that the need to consider “all the circumstances” (s 24(2) of <a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">the Charter</span></a>) means that the subsequent events can be (what I call) tainted by the initial breach. However, the majority on this point split 2-2 on the application of this to the circumstances of the case under appeal. The result therefore turned on the decision of Côte J, who, although differing from her 4 colleagues on the taint question, agreed with Rowe and O’Bonsawin JJ on the application of the balancing test to determine admissibility. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, as the evidence had been correctly admitted at trial. Martin and Kasirer JJ dissented in the application of the balancing test and would have allowed the appeal.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The facts are summarised at [4]-[10]. The impropriety of official misconduct is described at [11]-[12], being in essence that the police officer only just failed to have the necessary grounds to detain (breaching s 9 of the Charter) and search (s 8), by way of sniffer dog, Mr Zacharias.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">To appreciate the novelty of <i>Zacharias</i> in Canadian Charter jurisprudence, <span style="color: #e6000e;">[1]</span> it is useful to study the judgment of Côte J. Put starkly [102], it was the discovery of incriminating evidence that was the basis for all the police conduct after the improper detention, not the detention itself: “an arrest made on the basis of clear and reliable evidence of a crime is not “misconduct” from which the court should be concerned to dissociate itself.” She points out that in none of the Court’s jurisprudence has subsequent official conduct, not itself involving any further breach of rights, been taken into account when weighing the seriousness of the misconduct [78], [87], [97], [100].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Given the majority decision that a breach has relevance to police conduct after the discovery of incriminating evidence, the question becomes one of what is this relevance. While agreeing that the consequences of the breach are relevant to the issue of the impact of the breach on the defendant, Martin and Kasirer JJ gave this more weight in the admissibility determination because of rule of law concerns [109], [138]-[139], [143]-[151] (compare Rowe and O’Bonsawin JJ [70]-[73], with whom Côte J agreed [104]).</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In New Zealand the legislation leaves less (or no) room for a moral decision on this issue, and the cases apply an attenuation analysis. <span style="color: #e6000e;">[2]</span></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">_____________________________________</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #e6000e; font-style: normal;">[1] </span>I have previously referred here to some of the cases cited in <i>Zacharias</i>: <i>Tim</i> on <a href="https://nzcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2022/04/a-lawful-but-contextually-unreasonable.html" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">22 April 2022</span></a>, <i>Grant</i> on <a href="https://nzcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2009/07/detention-will-r-v-grant-work.html" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">18 July 2009</span></a> and <a href="https://nzcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2009/07/decision-tree-or-impenetrable-thicket.html" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">19 July 2009</span></a> and <a href="https://nzcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2011/10/that-decision-maple-tree-again.html" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">27 October 2011</span></a>, and see also <a href="https://nzcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2020/11/when-does-seriousness-of-offending-cut.html" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">11 November 2020</span></a>, <i>McColman</i> <a href="https://nzcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2023/03/admitting-improperly-obtained-evidence.html" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">25 March 2023</span></a>, <i>Chehil</i> and <i>MacKenzie</i> both on <a href="https://nzcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2013/10/reasonable-grounds-to-suspect.html" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">3 October 2013</span></a>, <i>Stairs</i> <a href="https://nzcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2022/04/proximity-and-fishing-in-safety.html" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">13 April 2022</span></a>, <i>Kang-Brown</i> on <a href="https://nzcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-cute-doggie.html" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">28 April 2008</span></a>, and <i>A.M.</i> also on <a href="https://nzcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2008/04/gymnasium-improprieties_28.html" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">28 April 2008</span></a> .</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #e6000e; font-style: normal;">[2]</span> <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0069/latest/DLM393610.html?search=ad_act__evidence____25_ac@bn@rn@dn@apub@aloc@apri@apro@aimp@bgov@bloc@bpri@bmem@rpub@rimp_ac@ainf@anif@bcur@rinf@rnif_a_aw_se_&p=1" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">Evidence Act 2006, s 30</span></a>, in which the references to consequence in subsection (5) and the use of the verb obtained are taken to invoke a causal analysis, although there are occasions where a more contextual analysis is used. Generally, see <i>R v Shaheed</i> [2002] 2 NZLR 377 at [10], [11], [180], [205], <i>R v Pou</i> [2002] 3 NZLR 637, <i>R v Williams</i> <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2007/52.html" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2007] NZCA 52</span></a> at [79]-[103], [243], <i>R v Rangihuna</i> [2008] NZCA 230, <i>R v Hsu</i> <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2008/468.html" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2008] NZCA 468</span></a>, <i>R v Rimine</i> <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2010/462.html" style="font-style: normal;" target="_blank"><span style="color: #3d85c6;">[2010] NZCA 462</span></a>, <i>Nicol v R</i> <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2017/140.html" style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2017] NZCA 140</span></a>, <i>R v Bailey</i> <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2017/211.html" target="_blank">[2017] NZCA 211</a>, <i>R v Alsford</i> <span style="color: #0c61ab; font-style: normal;"><a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZSC/2017/42.html" style="font-style: normal;">[2017] NZSC 42</a> , </span><span><i>Moore v R</i></span><span style="color: #0c61ab; font-style: normal;"> <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2017/577.html" target="_blank">[2017] NZCA 577</a>.</span></span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-23985005526709036382023-11-18T16:51:00.002+13:002023-11-20T08:04:59.799+13:00When is there no robbery?<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">There are times when the Court of Appeal allows an appeal against conviction but the prosecutor thinks that a mistake of law was made by that Court. If the prosecutor has no right of appeal from that decision, as is usually the case, it would be unsatisfactory if the Court of Appeal’s supposed error were to become a precedent. To meet that, while preserving the result of the appeal that had favoured the defendant (appellant), the Solicitor-General may seek the leave of the Supreme Court to refer a question of law for the decision of that Court.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This happened, leave was granted, and the question of law was answered in <i>Solicitor-General’s Reference (No 1 of 2023)</i> <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZSC/2023/151.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2023] NZSC 151</span></a>. The result was that the Solicitor-General’s argument, that the Court of Appeal had made a mistake, was accepted by the Supreme Court.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">At its most general, this decision illustrates how both the law and the facts must be considered when determining whether an acquittal for one offence prevents conviction for another [56].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">More specifically, the acquittal at jury trial of one person on a charge of robbery by violence did not prevent conviction of another person in the same incident for robbery committed together with that acquitted person. These are different charges: using violence in the course of robbery, and being together with another person and committing robbery. The legislation is set out at [57] of the judgment.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The circumstances of the first person’s acquittal at jury trial were important. Juries do not give reasons for their verdicts, so in the circumstances here the acquittal could have been because use of violence was not proved [61]. Indeed, the defendant at this trial had given evidence that he did not use violence, and this could have been consistent with what a prosecution eyewitness had said [29]-[30]. If that was the reason for the acquittal, there could still have been a robbery, just not one of the kind alleged.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The second person, whose conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal (and without ordering a retrial because the sentence had been served), had earlier pleaded guilty to the robbery in the “together with” form. Despite his plea, he appealed the conviction. Appeals against conviction after guilty plea are only allowed if maintaining the conviction could amount to a miscarriage of justice [39], [45]-[46].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to allow the appeal here. The Court of Appeal had thought that the acquittal of the first defendant meant that there had been no robbery [33]-[34], so the second defendant could not have committed a robbery together with that person. The Supreme Court pointed out that two different kinds of robbery were alleged, and that the acquittal of the first person at trial had no effect on the second person’s conviction arising from the plea of guilty.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This was not a controversial result. Counsel appointed to assist the Court [8], was in agreement with counsel for the Solicitor-General [35]-[36]. As the Court emphasised [1], [63], the result did not affect the quashing of the conviction by the Court of Appeal.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Just about everyone was happy.</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-62953260102624442822023-11-17T17:17:00.006+13:002023-11-20T11:32:50.878+13:00Fairness in joint trials - exclusion of evidence improperly prejudicial to a co-defendant: McNamara v The King [2023] HCA 36<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In <i>McNamara v The King</i> <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2023/36.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2023] HCA 36</span></a> the appellant had been tried jointly with one other defendant, and each blamed the other for the offending. Mr McNamara wanted to include in his evidence allegations of previous criminality by his co-defendant, but the judge ruled that the proposed evidence was inadmissible. This ruling was on the footing that the prejudicial effect of the evidence on the co-defendant outweighed its probative value for the defendant’s case.</span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Such a basis for excluding evidence is commonly found in evidence laws, and it functions to assist the judge in ensuring that the trial is fair. <span style="color: #e6000e;">[1]</span></span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Mr McNamara submitted through counsel on this appeal that the judge had no such power in a joint trial. This was rejected unanimously by the Court in two judgments.</span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Gageler CJ, Gleeson and JagotJJ considered in some detail the interesting <span style="color: #e6000e;">[2]</span> history of joint trials [25]ff. Included in this is a period during which it was unclear whether the supposedly unfettered right of a defendant to adduce otherwise admissible evidence was limited by the probative value vs prejudicial effect discretion [49]. The issue was settled by legislation [52]. This came down to the interpretation of the section mentioned at [59] and described in more detail at [1]:</span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="color: #0c61ab; font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">“Section 135(a) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ("the Evidence Act") empowers a court to refuse to admit evidence, that is relevant and otherwise admissible in "a proceeding", if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger that it might be unfairly prejudicial to "a party". The question in this appeal is whether "a party" includes a co-accused in a joint criminal trial. The answer is that it does. The Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was correct so to hold, and the appeal must be dismissed.”</span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">A joint trial is a proceeding and each defendant is a party, as is the prosecutor [62], and the exclusionary discretion applies [64]-[69], consistently with the operation of other relevant provisions [72]-[75].</span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Gordon and Steward JJ similarly analysed the legislation, and considered the on-going relevance of common law principles [92]ff, concluding at [109] that, consistently with dicta in other cases, <span style="color: #0c61ab;">“The existence of the discretion at common law to refuse to admit evidence coheres with the duty of the trial judge to provide an accused with a fair trial.”</span></span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">_______________________________</span></p><p style="font-family: Times; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Times; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #e6000e;">[1] </span>We have a similar provision in <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0069/latest/DLM393569.html?search=ad_act__evidence____25_ac@bn@rn@dn@apub@aloc@apri@apro@aimp@bgov@bloc@bpri@bmem@rpub@rimp_ac@ainf@anif@bcur@rinf@rnif_a_aw_se_&p=1"><span style="color: #0c61ab; font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">s 8 </span></a>of the Evidence Act 2006 [NZ]. In this, “proceeding” includes joint trials, and “the right of the defendant to offer an effective defence” is taken to mean the right to a fair trial: <i>R v Moffat</i> <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2009/437.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab; font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">[2009] NZCA 437</span></a>, [2010] 1 NZLR 701, (2009) 24 CRNZ 242, <i>Bracken v R</i> <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2016/79.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab; font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">[2016] NZCA 79</span></a> (leave refused <i>Bracken v R</i> <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZSC/2016/124.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab; font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">[2016] NZSC 124</span></a>), <i>Ambler v R </i>[2018] NZCA 245 at [41].</span></p><p style="font-family: Times; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Times; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #e6000e;">[2]</span> I say “interesting” because the following points are among those mentioned: during the eighteenth century criminal proceedings changed from being essentially inquisitorial to essentially adversarial [25]; at common law a defendant could not give sworn evidence, the right to do so being introduced in 1891 (NSW) and 1898 (England) [26]; the exclusionary rule for when probative value of evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect was only developed in 1914 ([27], and see my note <a href="https://nzcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2019/10/probative-value-and-prejudicial-effect.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab; font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">here</span></a> on 8 October 2019, particularly at footnotes 6 and 7); the requirement to acquit if there was a reasonable doubt about guilt was “discovered” only in 1935 [27]; the indictment is a foundational and constant feature of the criminal trial throughout the centuries [28]; in a criminal trial there is one indictment, which may include more than one defendant, and the jury can only determine issues in that indictment [29]. While it has been common to tell juries that where there is more than one defendant charged in the indictment there are separate trials for each of them, this should really be phrased as there are separate “cases” for the jury to consider (cf [36]).</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-21913026527081789042023-11-16T10:40:00.008+13:002023-11-16T18:44:58.723+13:00Juror or jury misconduct and miscarriage of justice: HCF v The Queen [2023] HCA 35<p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Disobedience to the judge’s instructions by both a juror and the jury were the basis for the appeal in <i>HCF v The Queen</i> <a href="http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2023/35.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2023] HCA 35</span></a>.</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The instructions were to not use the internet, and to inform the judge if the jury became aware that any of their number had contravened that instruction. A juror had investigated the meaning of the alleged offences and the relevant sentencing levels, and had then told his fellow jurors what he had found out. The jury had not informed the judge of this.</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">These irregularities were only discovered well after the verdicts had been returned and the defendant (appellant) had been convicted of some of the charges.</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Had these irregularities constituted a miscarriage of justice? If they had, what should the result of the appeal be?</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Court divided 3 -2.</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The minority justices, Edelman and Steward JJ, decided that there had been a miscarriage of justice and that the issue of whether this had been “substantial” in terms of the proviso (allowing the appeal to be dismissed if the miscarriage was not substantial) should be remitted to the lower appeal court as it had not been argued on this appeal.</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The majority, Gageler CJ, Gleeson and Jagot JJ, held, after close examination of the circumstances of the trial, that there had been no miscarriage of justice and therefore that the appeal should be dismissed.</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The decision criterion for whether jury or juror misconduct amounts to a miscarriage of justice is set out in the majority judgment. Significantly, the majority held that if this sort of error had occurred it would of itself, without further inquiry, require that the appeal against conviction be allowed [7]. The test for identifying this sort of error is described as a “double might” test [6]:</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="color: #3d85c6; font-size: medium;">“ … the test should be understood in terms of whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the jury (or juror) might not have discharged or might not discharge its function of deciding an accused's guilt according to law (which includes but is not limited to the requirement of impartiality), on the evidence, and in accordance with the directions of the judge. …”</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Descriptions of the consequences of this test being met are set out at 11:</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #3d85c6;">“… If the jury or juror misconduct would give rise to such a reasonable apprehension then, <i>for that reason</i>, the misconduct will involve a "failure to observe the requirements of the criminal process in a fundamental respect". In such a case, satisfaction of the reasonable apprehension test means that the "shadow of injustice over the verdict"<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; vertical-align: 6.5px;"><b> </b></span>cannot be dispelled, that the trial is "incurably flawed", that there has been a "serious breach of the presuppositions of the trial", and that "the irregularity [is] so material that of itself it constitutes a miscarriage of justice without the need to consider its effect on the verdict".</span> [footnotes omitted]</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The inquiry is not as to what might reasonably have been the effect of the misconduct on the actual jury that convicted the appellant ([12], referring to <i>Weiss v The Queen </i>(2005) 224 CLR 300 at 313-315 [34]-[38]). Rather, the inquiry is (my terminology here) objective. The perspective is that of a fair-minded and informed member of the public [13]. The facts that “inform” this fair-minded person are facts that are determined on the balance of probabilities [14]:</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="color: #3d85c6; font-size: medium;">“On the facts to be found on the balance of probabilities, might a fair-minded and informed member of the public reasonably apprehend that the jury or a juror might not have discharged the function of deciding the appellant's guilt according to law, on the evidence, and in accordance with the directions of the judge?”</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Mere disobedience by a juror or jury to a judge’s instruction is not in and of itself sufficient to give rise to a miscarriage of justice [48]. On close inspection of the facts here it could not be concluded that the disobedience was wilful [49]-[57], rather it was properly described as misconduct and irregular [59]. Further considerations, including the verdicts, took the issue no further. Speculation would not amount to a reasonable apprehension that the jury might not have discharged its function according to law and in accordance with the directions of the judge [69].</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">One can see that this fair-minded and reasonable observer is very well informed about the trial, and is not just some casual visitor to the public gallery in the courtroom. Really, I suggest, this person is an appeal judge, but in any event the focus is on the objectively assessed effect of the irregularity on the actual jury in the trial (the ‘this jury’ test [12]). Here, on the majority analysis, the convictions had not been demonstrated to have involved a miscarriage of justice, and therefore there was no occasion to consider the application of the proviso.</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">By what course of reasoning did the minority conclude that there had been a miscarriage of justice? Following <i>Weiss</i>, the occurrence of “<i>any</i> departure from trial according to law, regardless of the nature or importance of that departure” is a miscarriage of justice ([75], citing <i>Weiss</i> at [52] with emphasis in the original). The only qualification on this should be that the departure must be capable of affecting the result of the trial [78]. Other qualifications have been stated, as reviewed at [76]-[77], but reconciliation of them did not need to be attempted in the present case [79], as here a failure to ensure that the rules of procedure and evidence were strictly followed amounted to a miscarriage of justice [82]. While there is a range of irregular behaviour, from the trivial and inconsequential to the serious kind that will always constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice (such as proof of apprehended bias), the present case is one of the many where irregular behaviour or misbehaviour will have the <i>capacity</i> to prejudice the jury’s consideration of the defendant’s case and where the Crown therefore has the burden of satisfying the appellate court that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice [84].</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Here, on the minority view, there was capacity for the misconduct to affect the jury’s consideration of the defendant’s case [113]-[123]: the acts of disobedience could not be described as merely trivial or of no moment, their effect on the jury’s reasoning could not be known, the Crown had correctly conceded that if the misconduct had been known before the verdicts were returned the judge would almost inevitably have discharged the whole jury (but see the majority judgment at [45]-[46]), the disobedience of the jury was capable of casting a shadow of injustice over the whole verdict, and the discussion of the potential sentences for the alleged offending was a denial of procedural fairness to both the defendant and the Crown. Consequently, in the judgment of the minority, the existence of the miscarriage required consideration of the application of the proviso, and the matter should have been remitted to the Court of Appeal for determination of that issue.</span></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The minority’s need, upon concluding that there had been a miscarriage of justice, to consider the application of the proviso (that is, to decide whether the miscarriage of justice had been <i>substantial</i>) is in contrast to the majority’s view of the consequence if it had found that there had been a material miscarriage of justice. The majority would have regarded the misbehaviour, had it had an objectively perceived effect on the verdicts of guilty, as of itself requiring the convictions to be quashed. The difference emerges from differing treatments of <i>Weiss</i>.</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-24913102626170682812023-11-05T17:28:00.005+13:002023-11-06T10:12:18.334+13:00Luring, minimum sentences and constitutionality in Canada: R v Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">The Canadian offence of luring has been analysed in <i>R v Bertrand Marchand</i>, <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2023/2023scc26/2023scc26.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">2023 SCC 26</span></a> (3 November 2023). See s 172.1 of the Criminal Code, reproduced at [9] of the joint judgment. Additionally, the mandatory minium sentences which the legislature had applied to it were held to be unconstitutional as they were in breach of s 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">In deciding the constitutional point, the Court applied the method it used in its decision in <i>R v Hills</i>, 2023 SCC 2 (<a href="https://nzcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2023/01/hypothetical-facts-demonstrating.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">noted here</span></a> on 31 January 2023). The essential fault in the legislation was that it applied minimum sentences to conduct that was only remotely related to the heart of the offence [108] so that when reasonably foreseeable scenarios that would come within the defintion of the offence were considered the result would be sentences that were so excessive as to outrage standards of decency [109].</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">In essence, the luring offences defined in s 172 involve using telecommunication to communicate with persons who are or who are believed to be under ages specified in three categories, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of offences with respect to those people as specified for each age category. These are what can be called grooming offences although without any need for sustained contact [13].</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Comparable offences are in <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/whole.html?search=ad_act__crimes____25_ac@bn@rn@dn@apub@aloc@apri@apro@aimp@bgov@bloc@bpri@bmem@rpub@rimp_ac@ainf@anif@bcur@rinf@rnif_a_aw_se_&p=1#LMS834883"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">s 131AB </span></a>of the Crimes Act 1961 (NZ), and they carry a maximum, but not a minimum, sentence.</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">The discussion in <i>Bertrand Marchand</i> of the wrongfulness of luring ([34]ff) will be relevant for sentencing purposes in similar jurisdictions. Both gravity of the offending and the moral blameworthiness of the offender - an assessment of the personal aggravating and mitigating features - are relevant ([71]ff). In the absence of direct proof of actual harm, harm can be inferred [76]. Grooming is one aggravating factor, and others (listed non-exhaustively) are the character of the communication [77], deceit [80], abuse of a position or relationship of trust [82], and the age of the victim [85]. Since luring will often be accompanied by other offending, sentencing will have to address whether to impose concurrent or cumulative sentences, and the totality principle ([89]ff).</p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-36498405547094675592023-11-04T11:18:00.001+13:002023-11-04T13:46:46.901+13:00JFK - 4 bullets fired in Dealey Plaza?<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Allow me to wander a bit from the main concern of this site, out of respect for the sixtieth anniversary of the famous and infamous assassination ...</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">In a plain, elegant prose, of a kind that is sometimes written by the best graduates of the greatest universities, the Warren Commission summarised the reason for its own existence:</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">“ The President’s car which had been going north made a sharp turn toward the southwest onto Elm Street. At a speed of about 11 miles per hour, it started down the gradual descent toward a railway overpass under which the motorcade would proceed before reaching the Stemmons Freeway. The front of the Texas School Book Depository was now on the President’s right, and he waved to the crowd assembled there as he passed the building. Dealey Plaza - an open, landscaped area marking the western end of downtown Dallas - stretched out to the President’s left. A Secret Service agent riding in the motorcade radioed the Trade Mart that the President would arrive in 5 minutes.</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">“ Seconds later shots resounded in rapid succession. The President’s hands moved to his neck. He appeared to stiffen momentarily and lurch slightly forward in his seat. A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine. It travelled downward and exited from the front of the neck, causing a nick in the left lower portion of the knot in the President’s necktie. Before the shooting started, Governor Connally had been facing toward the crowd on the right. He started to turn toward the left and suddenly felt a blow on his back. The Governor had been hit by a bullet which entered at the extreme right side of his back at a point below his right armpit. The bullet traveled through his chest in a downward and forward direction, exited below his right nipple, passed through his right wrist which had been in his lap, and then caused a wound to his left thigh. The force of the bullet’s impact appeared to spin the Governor to his right, and Mrs. Connally pulled him down into her lap. Another bullet then struck President Kennedy in the rear portion of his head, causing a massive and fatal wound. The President fell into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap.”</p></blockquote><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left;">- Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (“<a href="https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/intro"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">the Warren Commission</span></a>”, or “the Commission”), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1964, p 3.</p></blockquote></blockquote><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">(Note: Governor Connally’s evidence is more detailed concerning his body position when hit: upon hearing a rifle shot he instinctively turned to his right because he thought it came from over his right shoulder, and as he could not see the President he started to turn to the left but didn’t complete this turn as he felt “something strike him in the back”, Warren Commission p 49).</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">That happened on 22 November 1963 in Dallas, Texas at about 12.30pm. It was 5.30am on the 23rd in New Zealand, and those horrible events were reported on our morning radio news bulletins. We still claim to remember what we were doing when we heard the news.</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">The Warren Commission’s Report was <a href="https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">reviewed in 1979</span></a> by the House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (the Committee). The Committee came to the same conclusion as had the Commission about the shots, except that in the light of additional information from accoustics experts it added that there was a high probability that there were four shots in all.</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">The Commission’s Report had been doubted by many people, indeed currently a majority of Americans, for the amount of damage it required one bullet to have caused. The Commission decided that the bullet that struck the President in the back and exited near his necktie was the same bullet that struck the Governor in the back. This bullet has been sarcastically dubbed the magic bullet. So the Committee’s fourth shot made room for a division of labour: one shot hit President Kennedy in the neck, exiting by the knot of his tie, and the other hit Governor Connally.</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">This possible - or “highly probable” - fourth shot raised questions about where it was fired from, and what sort of conspiracy was involved.</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Nowadays we can all inspect Dealey Plaza through Google Earth or Apple Maps. We can speculate about where a second gunman might have been, and whether the shot he fired hit anything.</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">At first glance it would be natural to think that the large hole in the back of the President’s head was an exit wound, and the shot was fired from in front of him. But, if that happened, where was the entrance wound? And careful reading of the medical evidence is convincing: the shot entered the lower part of the back of his skull just to the right of his spine, and, being angled acutely because at this point the President had his hands up by his throat and was leaning forwards and sideways towards the left, the bullet largely (it was fragmented after entry) exited approximately above the President’s right ear. The force of this tore out a large part of the back of his head, spraying a plume of blood forwards.</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">The Zapruder film, with the camera operating at a speed of 18.3 frames per second (Warren Commission, p 49) suggests that the large wound was in the front of the President’s head, but it was not. Modern television is transmitted at approximately 60 images per second, so it is necessary to make some allowance for misleading appearances in the older format. The Commission used the Zapruder film mainly to determine time intervals between shots.</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">If I had to place a second gunman I would have said he was just inside the entrance to the pedestrian walkway next to the Commerce Street underpass. The first open bay in the wall between the walkway and the road (best viewed in Apple Maps) should have given an ideal view of the presidential car, which would have appeared to have had minimal lateral movement as it was approaching the shooter directly. This corresponds to the view from the “snipers nest”in the Book Depository, from which the car would have been retreating in a straight line.</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">But there are difficulties with that. Traffic was slow or stationery, and occupants of cars would have seen the gunman. And Mr Tague, who stopped his car partly on the grass between Commerce Street and Main and got out to see what people were waiting for, would have been standing very close to the gunman’s line of sight. Indeed, Mr Tague was so close to a line between the Book Depository and the pedestrian underpass that he was struck in the face by a chip dislodged from the Main Street curb either by a bullet fired from the Book Depository that missed both the President and the Governor, or by something else that was dislodged by such a bullet.</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Supporting the second gunman theory is information onlly published this year (2023) by Paul Landis (“The Final Witness”, Chicago Review Press, 2023) who had been a security officer behind the presidential car. He says that when the cars arrived at the hospital he saw a bullet on the top of the back of the seat where the President had been sitting, where the seat meets the body of the car. He put it in his pocket so that it would not be souvenired by approaching people, and took it in to the emergency room where he put it on to the stretcher which still, at that point, contained the President. Previously, this bullet was thought to have been retrieved from the stretcher used for Governor Connally after it had been put, with the President’s, in the corridor outside the emergency rooms. If this new information is accurate it is consistent with the throat wound being an entrance wound, exiting in the upper back and landing in the position it was allegedly found.</p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">There were many eye witnesses, or at least people present, and the murder was captured on film. The Commission was not acting as a court, so was not limited to admissible evidence, but rather was functioning “as a factfinding agency committed to the ascertainment of the truth” (p xiv). So much information, so much uncertainty, or, more realistically, so much information and a bit of uncertainty. But enough of the “how”, and let’s not get started on “who” any conspirators might have been.</p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-37819911266461445862023-10-13T11:32:00.002+13:002023-10-13T18:46:31.723+13:00Expert opinion evidence - applying specialised knowledge: Lang v The Queen [2023] HCA 29<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">We all know how irritating philosophers can be. What would they make of this: “Expert evidence need not be opinion evidence”?</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Most statements about the world outside our own bodies are opinions. We can only opine about the reality that casts the shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave. But law is not philosophy.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The sentence quoted above is from <i>Lang v The Queen</i> <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2023/29.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2023] HCA 29</span></a>, per Kiefel CJ and Gageler J at [5]. The case is partly about the sufficiency of proof of guilt, and partly about the admissibility of expert opinion evidence. It is on the latter point that Kiefel CJ and Gageler J wrote, “to elaborate on the common law principles” [4]. Perhaps these judges read the judgments of their colleagues (Gordon and Edelman JJ, who jointly dissented on the application of the law to the evidence in this case, and Jagot J who wrote separately agreeing with the conclusion of Kiefel CJ and Gageler J that the challenged evidence here was admissible) and decided that a bit more was needed.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Principles developed under Australia’s uniform evidence legislation apply also where the law on the admissibility of expert opinion evidence is common law [11]-13]: <span style="color: #e6000e;">[1]</span></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="color: #0c61ab; font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">“Those principles require that, in order to satisfy the condition of admissibility that the opinion of an expert be demonstrated to be based on specialised knowledge or experience, the inference drawn by the expert which constitutes the opinion be supported by reasoning on the part of the expert sufficient to demonstrate that the opinion is the product of the application of the specialised knowledge of the expert to facts which the expert has observed or assumed. … it is enough that the opinion be demonstrated to be based substantially on that specialised knowledge … Reasoning sufficient to demonstrate that the opinion formed by an expert is the product of the application of his or her specialised knowledge need not be limited to formal induction or deduction. Speculation, however, is not reasoning … Nor is intuition. [The expert’s judgement] requires the justification of reasoned explanation when its conclusions are controverted.” </span></p></blockquote><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The utility or value of an opinion can be addressed in two separate ways, reflecting respectively admissibility and weight: the sufficiency of the demonstration that the opinion is the product of the application of specialised knowledge, and the extent to which the expert’s reasoning is clear and convincing. [15] On the admissibility question, lack of cogency (persuasiveness) is beside the point, [16] or at least it is unless a separate challenge to admissibility is made on the grounds that the probative value of the evidence is exceded by its illegitimately prejudicial effect [17]. Such a separate challenge was not made in this case [18], [25].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Here, the issue was whether the expert had drawn substantially on his specialised knowledge in engaging in the process of reasoning that led to the formation of his opinion.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The majority held that he had. His evidence was a process of inferential reasoning, throughout which he had compared what he had seen - a single stab wound with indicia of multiple thrusts and a turning of the blade in the wound - with what he had previously seen and read of the features of relevant but not identical cases involving suicide and assault [24], [469]. </span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In dissent, Gordon and Edelman JJ held that the expert had not shown how his expertise provided a substantial basis for any connection between the facts and the opinion that he expressed [242]. Instead, the asserted connection was speculative [239].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">A key difference in the interpretation of the expert’s evidence here is that while the dissenters attached significance to the witness’s description of the wound as “odd”, indicating that the witness was therefore forced to speculate, the majority understood the witness to have used the word “odd” in the sense of not fitting a standard pattern, and the witness was properly applying what he had previously seen and read about to what he observed [23].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">_________________________________________</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #e6000e;">[1] </span>We can expect the reverse to apply in New Zealand: principles developed at common law will inform the case law under the Evidence Act 2006, <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0069/latest/DLM393600.html?search=ad_act__evidence____25_ac@bn@rn@dn@apub@aloc@apri@apro@aimp@bgov@bloc@bpri@bmem@rpub@rimp_ac@ainf@anif@bcur@rinf@rnif_a_aw_se_&p=1"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">s 25</span></a>.</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-38457605165626975292023-09-11T15:03:00.002+12:002023-09-12T10:50:12.043+12:00When due process fails - the importance of legal representation: Watson v R (Bahamas) [2023] UKPC 32<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">A cluster of embarrassing errors in the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas led to a successful appeal by the offender in <i>Watson v R</i> (Bahamas) <a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2023/32.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2023] UKPC 32</span></a>. I say “embarrassing” because the errors were so fundamental. But, strange to say, oversights of this nature can easily occur.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The appeal Court had quashed a conviction for murder, substituted manslaughter, and in place of the original sentence of death imposed 50 years’ imprisonment. This sentence was imposed without hearing submissions on what the appropriate sentence should be.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">There was, therefore, a breach of natural justice amounting to a serious breach of procedural fairness [19]. This was compounded by the Court’s failure to give reasons for the 50-year sentence [39]. The Court had not accounted for the difference in the law of The Bahamas between murder (for which recklessness as to death is not sufficient for liability) and manslaughter [30]-[31], [35]. Additionaly, the Court had failed to give the offender credit for time spent in custody [44]. Essentially, the Court had acted on too little information.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">But confidence in the Court of Appeal’s integrity is reflected by the Privy Council referring back to the Court of Appeal the sentencing determination. In a sense this allows the Court of Appeal to assess the effects of its own error.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The ease with which a court can slip into fundamental error is also illustrated by an appeal (now of historical interest) from New Zealand: <i>Taito v R </i>(New Zealand) <a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2002/15.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2002] UKPC 15</span></a> . Essentially, the Court of Appeal had been over-burdened with administrative tasks, and these seem to have got in the way of the Court’s perception of justice. Legislation - since repealed and replaced <span style="color: #e6000e;">[1]</span> - had required the appeal court, through its Registrar, to determine the legal aid applications of prospective appellants in criminal cases. This requirement was accommodated by the practice of the Registrar referring the issue to three judges of the Court who would assess the merits of a proposed appeal and, if no arguable ground upon which the appeal might succeed could be discerned, the Registrar would be directed to refuse legal aid and the appeal would be dismissed without a hearing. This was felt to be most unsatisfactory by many judges, and the complex policy considerations that had come into play in the environment of fiscal constraint were mentioned by Sir Ivor Richardson in “The Courts and Access to Justice” (2000) <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/VUWLawRw/2000/14.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">31 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 163</span></a>. <span style="color: #e6000e;">[2]</span> The practice that had been adopted is described in <i>Taito</i>. Although pragmatic, the adopted procedure did not comply with statutory requirements for the hearing of appeals. In none of the 12 consolidated appeals in <i>Taito</i> had the Court heard argument, the appellants were not present or represented, and the judge delivering the determination either had no knowledge of the available information or had previously concluded that legal aid should not be granted as there was no arguable case. There was no exercise of judicial judgement in the disposal of the appeals. Where applicants for legal aid had sought review of their refusal, review was refused without reasons and without requests to be present being met.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The procedure that had been used by the Court of Appeal in <i>Taito</i> was a well-intentioned attempt to find a practical way of dealing with unmeritorious appeals, but as the Board observed, decisions as to merit could only be made after observance of procedural due process. Further, failure to supply some of the appellants with copies of the documents considered by the Court was also a source of discrimination because such an error could not have occurred had the appellants been represented by counsel. This, said the Board, was “contrary to fundamental conceptions of fairness and justice.”</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Unrepresented litigants take up a disproportionate amount of the courts’ time, a point noted by Sir Ivor in his article published in 2000 and referred to above, and he added that refusal of legal aid can be a false economy. Representation by counsel is a way of promoting procedural fairness, and absence of representation can result in rights being rendered meaningless. It is easy enough for courts to make fundamental errors, as is illustrated by <i>Watson</i>, above, and representation by counsel cannot be regarded as an indulgence: it is a protection, although not a guarantee of compliance with due process.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">_______________________________________</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="color: #0c61ab; font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #e6000e;">[1]</span><span style="color: black;"> See the <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0004/latest/DLM3142726.html?search=ad_act__legal+services____25_ac@bn@rn@dn@apub@aloc@apri@apro@aimp@bgov@bloc@bpri@bmem@rpub@rimp_ac@ainf@anif@bcur@rinf@rnif_a_aw_se_&p=1"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">Legal Services Act 2011</span></a>.</span></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #e6000e;">[2] </span>Preliminary screening of cases where an appellant sought legal aid by a panel of three judges of the Court of Appeal was a long standing practice, referred to in an earlier article by Sir Ivor: “The Role of an Appellate Judge” <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/OtaLawRw/1981/1.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">(1981) 5 Otago Law Review 1</span></a> at 5: “Coming next to criminal cases, because there are so few that involve only matters of law, leave to appeal is ordinarily required. In most cases, too, legal aid is sought and there is a preliminary screening by three of the judges to determine that. If any of the three has any reservations about any of the matters raised, for example, as to the directions given <span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">in </span>the summing up, or as to the admission or rejection of evidence, or<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>as to the sentence, then legal aid is granted and the appeal is set down for hearing. If not, legal aid is refused and the application for leave to appeal is called and dismissed without a hearing, unless in the meantime, for example, because of matters raised in further written submissions, the Court decides to hear full argument.” Plainly, unrepresented defendants were expected to know a lot of law.</span></p><div><br /></div>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-68669757053188347732023-09-01T14:58:00.011+12:002023-10-07T18:38:50.716+13:00Interpreting legislation, judges as not-machines, and what should we learn? Hemert v R [2023] NZSC 116<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Recently, in <i>Hemert v R</i> <a href="https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2023/2023-NZSC-116.pdf"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2023] NZSC 116</span></a>, we were given an illustration of statutory interpretation aided by reference to extraneous material. <span style="color: #fb0207;">[1]</span> At [57] the majority (with Williams J agreeing at [111]) refer to a report from the Law Commission which mentions how the relevant section should be interpreted, and to the absence of any contrary indication in the debates that Parliament had in the course of passing the legislation. Accordingly, the natural meaning of the enactment applied, and the Court held at [63] that this had been misconstrued by the Court of Appeal.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">That’s all very well, and there is of course much more of interest in this case. But what I have summarised does raise the question, what would the approach be if proper judicial assessment of the natural meaning of legislation was in conflict with what other bodies - such as the Law Commission and Parliament (or more accurately, politicians in the course of debates in Parliament) - had indicated?</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2019/0058/latest/DLM7298125.html?search=ad_act__legislation+act____25_ac@bn@rn@dn@apub@aloc@apri@apro@aimp@bgov@bloc@bpri@bmem@rpub@rimp_ac@ainf@anif@bcur@rinf@rnif_a_aw_se_&p=1"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">Legislation Act 2019</span></a> does not explicitly endorse reference to such extraneous materials. Whether s 10, the relevant section here, does implicitly allow that in the search for the “purpose” of the legislation, and to any relevant material for “context”, is a matter upon which screeds may be written. Generally, enactments are taken to preserve as much of the existing law as is possible (or, as is sensible, given that they are usually intended to change something). Reference to extraneous materials was a common practice before the Legislation Act came into force, replacing earlier legislation on the interpretation of legislation.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Constitutionally speaking, the courts interpret and apply legislation. Independence of the judiciary implies that individual people, whether unelected officials who work on drafting legislation, elected members of Parliament, or legal experts who do not represent any party to litigation and who are not called upon to assist the court with submissions, do not tell the courts what enacted law means. It is for the legislature to make the meaning of its enactments intrinsically clear.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Still, opinions may differ over those matters. When judges find support for their own take on what is a natural meaning of legislation in the work of extraneous bodies, they may be inclined to cite that work in support. No harm is done by that, and it may provide further clarity.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Of course, as Williams J is careful to point out at [112]-[113], application of a prescribed phrase to particular circumstances can be difficult, and its meaning may not be static where “contemporary community attitudes and values” must be taken into account, so that it may need to be developed incrementally but only as necessary. This is, we may observe, the process whereby the law shifts to meet the needs of the community as judicial experience and judgement is brought to bear in individual cases.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In some ways this approach to interpreting legislation is like the development of the common law. Who can really forget what Julius Stone said <span style="color: #fb0207;">[2]</span> (I paraphrase in order to remove some of the diction which now appears rebarbative):</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="color: #38761d; font-size: medium;">“… changes in legal precepts by reference to contemporary social facts and ideals … [are brought about by] the <i>person</i> in the appellate judgement seat, imbued by a life-span with some of the temper, perplexities, insights, preferences and values of their generation. When we ask how [this change in precepts is to occur], the answer is certainly not in the giving of judgements which conform to predictions based on <i>past</i> performances. It is rather in deciding what is <i>now</i> just [as the judge sees it].”</span></p></blockquote><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Stone was writing in 1966 about how machines cannot adequately replace human beings in the judicial role. <span style="color: #38761d;">“[Judges], in doing justice, seem always to be transcending the drive, methods, and limits of mere intellect.”</span></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">And from Stone it is worth turning our attention to <a href="https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/speechpapers/23-07-13-Keep-Running-Up-That-Hill-150-years-of-legal-education-at-Canterbury-FINAL.pdf"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">a lecture</span></a> delivered by the Chief Justice of New Zealand on 13 July 2023, marking the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Law School at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. This asks, if I may put it generally, what topics should be included in a law degree, aside from the core subjects? This may leave one wondering if there is any room for more than there now is, or whether some subjects could be dropped. The central concern seems to be putting the law in the context of the community and its institutions (its “systems”). Getting students acquainted with how things are done, and with what should be done, has its place in the law degree.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This is not to ignore the reality that most law graduates will learn in practice more of what they need to know than they could ever be taught at law school.<span style="color: #fb0207;">[3]</span> In the environment of office, courtroom or other workplace, an awful lot of education goes on. So, what are the surviving effects of a law degree? The mind trained to analyse and reason in the legal way, to locate relevant law both legislation and case law, and to work towards a goal desired by the client. A mind that could not be imitated by a machine.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In going to work in criminal law, most graduates have left their formal study of the subject several years in the past. There are plenty of training opportunities provided by the profession <span style="color: #fb0207;">[4]</span> to get such graduates back up to speed, and there will be colleagues who are ready with advice and assistance. Refresher seminars in the law of evidence and procedure will also be available, as will opportunities about contextual matters such as client relations, cultural contributions to legal process, and working with state agencies.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Chief Justice’s points are, of course, well made, but it seems to me that there are plenty of ways of accommodating them outside of formal university education. University study at the undergratuate level should be devoted to getting an understanding of the intellectually demanding aspects of legal education: the substance of the subjects, their interrelationships, and the qualities that make them “law”. <span style="color: #fb0207;">[5] </span><span>And skills in utilising the advantages and avoiding the dangers of AI generated text will have to become second nature for students, with emphasis on accessing official versions of judicial decisions and legislation, and genuine copies of secondary materials.</span></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">_________________________________________</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #fb0207;">[1] </span>The issue was interpretation of the phrase “the evidence of the offence and the circumstances of the offender” in relation to whether a life sentence for murder would be manifestly unjust. The Supreme Court held that these two elements - the evidence and the circumstances - were to be considered in the round, so that although the evidence of the offence might of itself not make a life sentence manifestly unjust, when considered with the circumstances of the offender the life sentence could be manifestly unjust, although not in this case.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #fb0207;">[2] </span>Julius Stone, <i>Social Dimensions of Law and Justice,</i> Stevens and Sons, 1966.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #fb0207; font-style: normal;">[3]</span> I left my formal undergraduate law studies not knowing what bail is, but after a morning in the Magistrates' Court (observing, in preparation for becoming a duty lawyer) I certainly did know. No one was disadvantaged by my ignorance. In due course I did find a use for the considerable amount of law that I did know. Many people were advantaged by that. As Adam Gopnik observes in <i>The Real Work - On the Mystery of Mastery</i> (2023), "The real work is what we do for other people."</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #fb0207;">[4]</span> What could be more wonderful than “continuing legal education”- a now institutionalised requirement. Just saying it makes us feel better.</span></p><p style="color: #fb0207; font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #fb0207;">[5] </span>And (don’t let me go on about this), some law schools appear to gain status by heaping an awful lot of work on students, to the disadvantage of the slow, thoughtful readers.</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-70982543595677272762023-08-25T19:51:00.001+12:002023-08-25T19:51:38.532+12:00Applications for leave to appeal before trial: W (CA624/2022) v R [2023] NZCA 397<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Today is the nineteenth anniversary of the start of this site. Celebrations have been restrained and dignified, although I do seem to have to correct a lot of typing mistakes just now.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">My fear that the day would pass without producing an excuse for me to mention that significant occasion has been allayed by the Court’s publication of its reasons in <i>W (CA624/2022) v R</i> <a href="https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2023/2023-NZCA-397.pdf"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2023] NZCA 397</span></a>.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This case deals with the criteria for deciding to grant leave for a pre-trial appeal. Occasions for such appeals are listed in the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 215, 217, 218, which are reproduced at [5], [6], and (for s 218) summarised at [7]. The Court considers the policy matters that the legislation addresses at [16]-[21], and notes the relevant law in comparable jurisdictions at [23]-[24].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">New Zealand ’s leading case law is in the <i>Leonard</i> and the <i>Hohipa</i> decisions, considered at [25]-[30] for <i>Leonard</i>, listing the decision criteria at [28]-[29]. <i>Hohipa</i> is referred to at [31]-[33]. The present case (<i>W</i>) does not overrule those criteria, but adds to them in the light of experience. Recent experience and issues arising from it are described at [34]-[41]. The two questions raised by this experience are stated at [41].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Court does not attempt to answer the first question which is why are so many applications for leave to appeal before trial made? My own guess is that (apart from the misleading <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3865770.html?search=ad_act__criminal+procedure____25_ac@bn@rn@dn@apub@aloc@apri@apro@aimp@bgov@bloc@bpri@bmem@rpub@rimp_ac@ainf@anif@bcur@rinf@rnif_a_aw_se_&p=1"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">heading</span></a> to s 215, and similarly to 217 and 218 which suggests that there is a “right” to appeal before trial, when there is only a right to <i>seek leave</i> to appeal in the relevant occasions) counsel do not wish to be criticised at a later stage of the proceedings for not having sought leave pre-trial, and do not want any inference adverse against their client to be drawn from the absence of any pre-trial application for leave.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">But the other point raised in [41] is more important: the need for counsel to assist in the determination of an application for leave by particularising the issues (see [53]-[55]).</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The leave criteria are restated at [52], with the interests of justice being the overall consideration. There are 13 criteria in the list, labeled (a) to (m). In <i>Leonard</i> the Court had identified 5 criteria favouring leave being granted (repeated here at [5]), and 5 against (see [6]). So, what are the 3 that are added in the present case? The criteria in <i>W</i> at [52(a)-(c)] are not in the <i>Leonard</i> list but they do appear in other case law.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">My impression is that all the criteria, those in <i>Leonard</i> and those in the present case, are relevant. There is no express departure from the <i>Leonard</i> criteria, but the overlap of particular criteria (for example, <i>Leonard</i> (a) in favour of granting leave and <i>W</i> (d), (e), and (f); <i>Leonard</i> (b) and <i>W</i> (i) and (m)) suggests that they should all be read together. The emphasis in <i>W</i> is on the avoidance of unnecessary delay in the completion of the criminal proceedings [55].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">And, as I said in Jeremy Finn and Don Mathias, <i>Criminal Procedure in New Zealand </i>(3rd ed, 2019, Thomson Reuters NZ Ltd, Wellington) at [14.6], it is important to advance at the earliest opportunity strong grounds in an application for leave to appeal, as there is no appeal against a refusal of leave.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Of particular interest to law reformers is the reference at [23] to the law in comparable jurisdictions: Canada, New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, and England and Wales.</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-1087433759609923692023-08-11T18:42:00.002+12:002023-08-20T09:36:20.787+12:00The plea of previous conviction: Mitchell v Police [2023] NZSC 104<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Protection against double jeopardy can be given by statute and by common law. Statutory protection can exist in the form of provisions for pleas of previous conviction or previous acquittal, and by a right not to be tried or punished for an offence for which a final conviction or acquittal has been entered. Common law protection can take the form of a stay of proceedings to prevent abuse of process, or in the sentencing process by the avoidance of double punishment, or in the plea of <i>autrefois convict</i> to the extent that it has not been replaced by legislation.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Statutory rules concerning the plea of previous conviction can be difficult to interpret and apply. Such difficulties in New Zealand law are surveyed in <i>Mitchell v Police</i> <a href="https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2023/2023-NZSC-104.pdf"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">[2023] NZSC 104</span></a> (11 August 2023). The relevant provision here is <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360094.html?search=ad_act__criminal+procedure____25_ac@bn@rn@dn@apub@aloc@apri@apro@aimp@bgov@bloc@bpri@bmem@rpub@rimp_ac@ainf@anif@bcur@rinf@rnif_a_aw_se_&p=1"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">s 46(1)(b)</span></a> of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The issue is quite simple, as is the Court’s application of its interpretation of the legislation: [2], [68]-[69]. Arriving at the correct interpretation of the legislation was not entirely straightforward, and the Court noted at [63] that there is “some opacity” in the drafting of s 46(1). The phrase “arising from the same facts” marks a change from the previous legislative focus on the elements of the charges, in favour of placing the facts as central to the inquiry. And here, it is “substantial” similarity that is required: in s 46(1)(b), “those facts” means substantially those facts, and what is required is substantial similarity in the acts that make the charges punishable.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">So, Mr Mitchell’s charges referred to common acts (driving, with some alcohol in his breath: [67]) and to facts that made each charge punishable (having a breath alcohol level in excess of the legal limit, and having any alcohol in his system in breach of his zero alcohol licence). Those punishable facts were different for each charge, and there was nothing unlawful in his being convicted on each [69].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Substantial sameness does not include single acts that have several victims ([64] and footnote 90). But it probably includes facts which are accompanied by different mental elements ([64] footnote 89, but Ellen France J had some reservations about this [78]).</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Section 46(1) has changed the law by reforming the very narrow approach to the availability of the plea of previous conviction that some authorities had applied: [62], [46]. This means that, for example, the following charges (in <i>Hickson</i>, referred to at [46]) would now be held to arise from substantially the same facts: (a) selling liquor in licensed premises when such premises were directed to be closed; (b) exposing liquor for sale in such premises during such a period; and (c) opening such premises for the sale of liquor during such a period.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Court in <i>Mitchell</i> uses that example to illustrate the former law’s rejection of the plea of previous conviction where a “subtle difference” between the elements of the offences could be discerned [45]. Again, referring at [47] to <i>Brightwell</i>, the offences of presenting a firearm without lawful and sufficient purpose, and by (substantially) the same act threatening to do grievous bodily harm, were a further illustration of the subtle difference that would no longer be recognised. Pursuant to <i>Mitchell</i>, the approach would now be to ask whether the punishable act for each offence is substantially the same, the answer for <i>Hickson</i> and <i>Brightwell</i> being yes it was in those cases.</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Ellen France J, concurring but for slightly different reasons, thought it is questionable whether s 46 places a controlling role upon the facts [76]. The point here is that the elements of the offences will “in most cases” (see footnote [94]) assist in defining the necessary facts for the purposes of s 46. She also had reservations about the use of the concept of common punishable act [77].</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">And, I add for law students to consider: When are the punishable acts “substantially” the same for each offence? If the difference between exposing liquor for sale and selling that liquor is too subtle to exclude the plea of previous conviction (<i>Hickson</i> as reviewed in <i>Mitchell</i>), why isn't the difference between having alcohol in the breath when driving and having excess alcohol in the breath on that occasion too subtle to exclude the plea? Will the rejection of the search for subtle differences in the elements of the offences lead to a search for subtle differences in the punishable acts for each, as grounds for rejecting the plea of previous conviction? And would that be objectionable? Has the precedent value of future cases on this topic been reduced by the mandated emphasis on facts, and, if so, is that consistent with the rule of law?</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8066182.post-85965973776862456342023-08-04T19:42:00.001+12:002023-08-05T09:57:37.766+12:00Fair trials for unrepresented defendants - the use of amici curiae in Canada<p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In Canada, an amicus curiae may perform a variety of functions, limited by the role of an amicus as a “friend of the court”: <i>R v Kahsai</i>, <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2023/2023scc20/2023scc20.html"><span style="color: #0c61ab;">2023 SCC 20</span></a> (28 July 2023) at [40]. The duty of loyalty to the court must always be upheld, whatever the functions that the judge gives an amicus in an individual case. Therefore, the amicus has no duty of loyalty to a defendant, and is not in a solicitor-client relationship with a defendant. The amicus cannot be dismissed by the defendant. When required to advocate for the defendant, the amicus still does not represent the defendant. The amicus cannot be given functions that undermine the judge’s impartiality, for example by making strategic decisions to assist the defendant ([41]-[42]).</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The right of a defendant to self-represent is important, and this may restrict what an amicus can do. Decisions on plea, mode of trial, whether to give or call evidence, and what defence to rely on are decisions that must be left to the defendant. But those decisions must be informed and reality-based, and made within the confines of the law. So, evidence can only be given in accordance with the law of evidence, and only defences that are lawfully available can be advanced by the defendant. Nor can the defendant require an amicus to act unethically. The defendant’s decisions on the conduct of the defence must be respected even though an amicus may have made different decisions. But the judge may require the assistance of the amicus in testing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, although this may require a fine balancing against the defendant’s right to control the defence. Within the limits of the strategic choices made by the defendant, the amicus should always be entitled to test the strength of the prosecution case ([43]-[46], [49]).</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Avoiding imbalance in the adversarial process when a defendant is unrepresented by counsel puts a trial judge under a duty to ensure the proceedings respect the defendant’s fundamental rights. However, judicial help must not have the appearance of undermining impartiality [54]. The prosecutor also has duties of ensuring the fairness of trials [55], particularly in relation to ensuring that unrepresented defendants know about their rights to obtain disclosure [56]. The appointing of an amicus may be necessary where the duties of judge and prosecutor in relation to unrepresented defendants cannot go far enough to achieve trial fairness or the appearance of fairness. For example, where a defendant, although fit to stand trial, displays symptoms of mental health challenges, or simply refuses to participate in the trial ([57]-[58]).</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Appointments of amici are reserved for exceptional circumstances and are not routine. Relevant considerations will be the nature and complexity of the charges, the mode of trial (judge alone or jury), the attributes of the defendant, the need for assistance in advancing the defence case or in testing the prosecution evidence, and the extent to which the judge and the prosecutor can provide assistance ([60]-[61], [64]-[66]).</span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In New Zealand we address the ways in which assistance may be given by counsel appointed by the court by categorising such counsel as special advocates, independent counsel, amici curiae, and standby counsel. Read more about this in Jeremy Finn and Don Mathias, <i>Criminal Procedure in New Zealand </i>(3rd ed, 2019, Thomson Reuters Ltd, Wellington) at [11.5]. Go on, you know you want to.</span></p>Don Mathiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15613455664855241282noreply@blogger.com