Nevin v R

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 12/2008
[2008] NZSC 40

BETWEENTIMOTHY JUSTIN NEVIN

Applicant

ANDTHE QUEEN

Respondent

Court:Blanchard, Tipping and Wilson JJ
Counsel:P Davey for Applicant

B J Horsley for Respondent

Judgment:20 May 2008

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
REASONS
[1] The applicant was convicted of assaulting the complainant with a knife and of possession of the knife. He was acquitted of two other charges relating to the same incident, namely unlawful detention and threatening to kill. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against conviction in which he had asserted that the verdicts were inconsistent. He now seeks leave to appeal to this Court on effectively the same ground.
[2] The proposed appeal does not raise any question of general importance, nor is there any appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The principle is clear and well established; the Court will intervene only where there is no rational or logical explanation for different verdicts. The Court of Appeal was fully entitled to conclude that the present verdicts were not inconsistent. The guilty verdicts were on charges where the evidence of the complainant was supported by other evidence. In contrast, where what the complainant said was not corroborated the jury acquitted the applicant. The applicant criticises the Court of Appeal for not referring to two Court of Appeal authorities. But, as Crown counsel points out, one of them is concerned with a different type of case, namely one where the charges had common elements so that if the jury was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on one count it could not consistently be satisfied on another. The other authority seems to us to have turned on its particular facts which differ from those in the present case. No question of principle arises from the failure of the Court of Appeal to refer to either of those authorities.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Timothy Justin Nevin sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand against his conviction and sentence, which arose from an incident where he was found guilty of assaulting a complainant with a knife and possessing the knife. Nevin was acquitted on two other charges related to the same incident: unlawful detention and threatening to kill. The Court of Appeal had dismissed Nevin's appeal against his conviction, which centred on the inconsistency of the verdicts. Nevin now appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the verdicts were inconsistent.

The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appeal raised any question of general importance or demonstrated a miscarriage of justice. The Court needed to determine if the Court of Appeal was correct in concluding that the verdicts were not inconsistent and whether the verdicts were rationally and logically explained. The Court also had to consider if the Court of Appeal erred by not referring to two previous Court of Appeal authorities on the matter of inconsistent verdicts.

The Supreme Court held that the appeal did not raise any question of general importance or demonstrate a miscarriage of justice. The Court found that the principle regarding inconsistent verdicts was well established, and the Court would intervene only if there was no rational or logical explanation for the different verdicts. In this case, the guilty verdicts were supported by the complainant's evidence and other evidence, while the acquittals were on charges where the complainant's evidence was not corroborated. The Supreme Court also held that the Court of Appeal's failure to refer to the two previous Court of Appeal authorities did not give rise to any question of principle, as one authority related to a different type of case and the other turned on its particular facts, which differed from the present case. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established