Legal Research
Cases
H v The Queen

H v The Queen

Case [2013] NZSC 7 28 February 2013

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF THE NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 17 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS PROHIBITED BY S 139A OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 54/2012
[2013] NZSC 7

THE QUEEN

Court: McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ

Counsel: Appellant in person
M D Downs for Respondent
N Levy as Amicus

Judgment: 28 February 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
BThe approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal’s treatment of the affidavit(s) of H’s son, M, was correct.

REASONS

In addressing the above ground, the parties may need to consider the effect of the following provisions: s 389(b) of the Crimes Act 1961, s 83(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006, s 60(4) of the Judicature Act 1908 and rr 12B and 12BA of the Court of Appeal (Criminal) Rules 2001.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

Details

AGLC: H v The Queen [2013] NZSC 7
Case: [2013] NZSC 7
Decision Date: 28 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of H v The Queen was heard by McGrath, William Young, and Glazebrook JJ. The appellant, H, was appealing against a decision made by the Court of Appeal. The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal had correctly handled the affidavits submitted by H's son, M. The case hinged on the interpretation and application of certain statutory provisions and rules, including sections 389(b) of the Crimes Act 1961, 83(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006, 60(4) of the Judicature Act 1908, and rules 12B and 12BA of the Court of Appeal (Criminal) Rules 2001.

The court examined the procedural correctness of the Court of Appeal's handling of M's affidavits, considering whether these documents should have been admitted or excluded under the specified legal frameworks. The appellant argued that the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of the affidavits, which could have impacted the outcome of the case. The respondent, represented by M D Downs, contended that the Court of Appeal's approach was appropriate and in line with the relevant statutory provisions and rules.

After careful deliberation, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal's treatment of the affidavits was indeed correct. The Supreme Court concluded that the procedural steps taken by the Court of Appeal were consistent with the applicable laws and rules. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Court of Appeal was upheld.

Orders