Ian Edward Hitchcock v The Queen

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 126/2016
[2017] NZSC 71

BETWEEN	IAN EDWARD HITCHCOCK Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	William Young, Arnold and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	L Hitchcock for Applicant J E L Carruthers for Respondent
Judgment:	17 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant has sought a recall of the judgment of this Court dismissing his application for leave to appeal.[1] The application is made on the basis the Court has not taken into account that late disclosure by the police of cellphone evidence meant critical evidence was not made available at trial or available for consideration by the Court of Appeal.
[1]Hitchcock v R [2017] NZSC 29.
The text of the Court’s judgment makes it clear that the applicant’s argument on this aspect was understood and addressed. No viable basis for recall has been put forward. The application for recall is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ian Edward Hitchcock has appealed against the dismissal of his application for leave to appeal, which was previously dismissed by the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The matter before the court is the applicant's contention that the late disclosure of cellphone evidence by the police resulted in critical evidence being unavailable at the trial and, subsequently, to the Court of Appeal. The applicant's argument hinges on the late disclosure of this evidence, which he claims was not considered by the court. The court had to determine whether the late disclosure of cellphone evidence warranted a recall of the judgment dismissing the applicant's leave to appeal.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the late disclosure of cellphone evidence constituted a sufficient ground for recalling the judgment dismissing the applicant's application for leave to appeal. The court had to consider whether the applicant's argument that critical evidence was unavailable at trial and to the Court of Appeal was viable. The court also needed to evaluate if the applicant's argument was understood and addressed in the previous judgment. The court's decision hinged on whether the applicant had put forward a viable basis for recalling the judgment.

The court held that the applicant's argument regarding the late disclosure of cellphone evidence had been understood and addressed in the previous judgment. The court found that no viable basis for recall had been put forward, and therefore dismissed the application for recall. The court concluded that the applicant's argument did not present a sufficient ground for recalling the judgment dismissing his application for leave to appeal. The court's judgment was clear that the applicant's argument on this aspect had been understood and addressed. The court's reasoning was that the applicant had not provided a viable basis for the recall of the judgment.

The court dismissed the application for recall of the judgment. The court found no viable basis for recalling the judgment dismissing the applicant's application for leave to appeal. The court concluded that the applicant's argument had been understood and addressed in the previous judgment, and that the applicant had not provided a sufficient ground for recalling the judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established