COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Tame Wairere ITI, Te Rangikaiwhiria KEMARA, Urs SIGNER and Emily BAILEY v The Queen

[2012] NZCA 492

CASE SUMMARY

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It does not comprise part of the reasons for that judgment. The full judgment with reasons is the only authoritative document. The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at Judicial Decisions of Public Interest

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/decisions/judgments.html

The appellants, Tame Iti, Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara, Urs Signer and Emily Bailey, were convicted of various charges under the Arms Act 1983. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the charge of participating in an organised criminal group under s 98A of the Crimes Act 1961. (On the application of the Crown, a stay has been ordered of that charge.) The Court of Appeal has dismissed their appeals against conviction and sentence.

The appellants challenged their convictions on four grounds:

1) pre-trial publicity about the case meant they could not have a fair trial;

2) the Judge’s directions as to party liability were incorrect;

3) other aspects of the Judge’s directions were inadequate; and

4) the Crown case on the charge of participating in an organised criminal group did not comprise an offence.

The Court of Appeal held that the pre-trial publicity did not give rise to the risk of an unfair trial. There was a significant time lapse between the publicity and the trial date, and any risk was appropriately addressed by the precautions taken in empanelling the jury and judicial directions. In terms of party liability, the Court held that Judge correctly directed the jury that the effect of the Arms Act was that the defendants had to show it was more likely than not that they had a lawful purpose for possessing the firearms. The other aspects of the trial Judge’s directions were appropriate and did not contain any material omissions. Finally, the jury’s inability to agree on the s 98A charge could not retrospectively affect the analysis which led to the evidence supporting that charge being admitted in the first place.

The appellants challenged their sentences on the ground the High Court Judge sentenced them on a factual basis inconsistent with the jury’s inability to agree on the s 98A charge. The Court of Appeal considered the factual findings reached by the Judge were open to him and that the sentences imposed were within range.

ENDS

Scoop copy of judgment: Iti_Kemara_Signer_Bailey_v_R.pdf

© Scoop Media