Jones v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-404-000119

[2022] NZHC 2300

BETWEEN
SHARYN MARGARET JONES

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

PB Borich KC for Appellant

RD Butler and MA Beattie for Respondent

Judgment:

9 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 9 September 2022 at 1 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau. PB Borich KC, Auckland. RD Butler, Auckland.
MA Beattie, Auckland.

JONES v POLICE [2022] NZHC 2300 [9 September 2022]

[1] Sharyn Jones was convicted of four charges of theft by a person in a special relationship. She appeals conviction.

[2] The respondent offers a concession the appeal should be allowed. It acknowledges trial counsel did not take a brief (or statement) of evidence from Ms Jones or provide detailed advice as to whether Ms Jones should testify. The respondent acknowledges the latter is a “fundamental” decision, in relation to which a failure “will generally give rise to a miscarriage” of justice.1

[3] The concession is responsible. Trial counsel acknowledges her failings. And, Ms Jones had no earlier experience of the criminal justice system. No question of the proviso arises. Ms Jones has suffered a miscarriage of justice through counsel error.

Result

[4]The appeal is allowed. The convictions are quashed. A re-trial is ordered.

……………………………..

Downs J

1 Hall v R [2015] NZCA 403, [2018] 2 NZLR 26 at [65].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal from Ms. Sharyn Margaret Jones against her conviction for four charges of theft by a person in a special relationship. Ms. Jones' appeal was against the decision of the lower court, which had found her guilty of the charges. The respondent in this case was the New Zealand Police. The appeal was heard on the papers, and the court was represented by PB Borich KC for the appellant and RD Butler and MA Beattie for the respondent.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the trial counsel's failure to take a statement of evidence from Ms. Jones or provide detailed advice on whether she should testify constituted a fundamental error that led to a miscarriage of justice. The respondent conceded that the appeal should be allowed because trial counsel had not taken a statement of evidence from Ms. Jones or provided detailed advice on whether she should testify. The court held that the concession was responsible and that Ms. Jones had suffered a miscarriage of justice due to counsel error.

In its judgment, the court accepted the respondent's concession that the appeal should be allowed. The court held that the trial counsel's failure to take a statement of evidence from Ms. Jones or provide detailed advice on whether she should testify constituted a fundamental error that led to a miscarriage of justice. The court noted that Ms. Jones had no earlier experience of the criminal justice system and that no question of the proviso arose. The court held that the appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a re-trial was ordered. The court's judgment was delivered by Downs J on 9 September 2022.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established