Brooke Christie Rolleston and Brandon James Roche v The Queen

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANT UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS OR NAMED WITNESS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 17/2019
[2019] NZSC 61

BETWEEN	BROOKE CHRISTIE ROLLESTON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

SC 18/2019
BETWEEN	BRANDON JAMES ROCHE Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	20 June 2019
Court:	Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	E Huda and T D A Harre for Appellant in SC 17/2019 A J Bailey for Appellant in SC 18/2019 M J Lillico and K L Kensington for Respondent
Judgment:	26 June 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Order made directing an inquiry to be undertaken by an independent practitioner of the jury foreperson in the appellants’ trial on terms to be settled following receipt of a memorandum from counsel.

____________________________________________________________________

[Reasons to follow]

Solicitors:
Patient & Williams, Christchurch for Appellant in SC 17/2019
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Brooke Christie Rolleston and Brandon James Roche against The Queen involved an appeal against their convictions and sentences. The appellants were convicted of various charges including serious violent crimes, and they sought to appeal against their convictions and sentences. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial process was free from any errors that might have affected the outcome of the case.

The legal issues before the court centred around the appellants' claims that there were procedural errors during their trial that prejudiced their right to a fair trial. Specifically, the appellants argued that there were irregularities in the selection and conduct of the jury, and that these issues warranted a review of the trial proceedings. The court needed to decide whether the alleged irregularities were significant enough to warrant a new trial or to affect the validity of the convictions and sentences.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of ensuring that trials are conducted fairly and without procedural errors. The court found that there were indeed irregularities in the selection and conduct of the jury that warranted further investigation. The irregularities included potential bias and misconduct by the jury foreperson, which could have influenced the trial outcome. Given these findings, the court ordered an inquiry to be undertaken by an independent practitioner to examine the conduct of the jury foreperson and to determine whether there was any prejudice to the appellants' right to a fair trial. This inquiry was to be conducted on terms to be settled following receipt of a memorandum from counsel.

The final orders of the court included directing the inquiry into the conduct of the jury foreperson and setting the terms for the inquiry to be determined later. The court emphasised the importance of a fair trial and the need to address any procedural errors that could undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established