Raeleen Matewai Noyle Rameka v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 73/2013
[2013] NZSC 121

BETWEEN	RAELEEN MATEWAI NOYLE RAMEKA Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, McGrath and William Young JJ
Counsel:	E A Hall for Applicant M F Laracy for Respondent
Judgment:	14 November 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Ms Rameka’s appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Leave to appeal has been granted by reference to a question expressed in general terms but the Court is primarily interested in hearing argument as to:
(a)        Whether the Judge was required to give a unanimity direction in respect of liability under subs 66(1) and (2).
(b)       Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to go to the jury under s 66(1).
(c)        If the Court of Appeal was correct in this respect, did a miscarriage of justice result because liability under s 66(1) was left to the jury?
(d)       Were the jury given sufficient and adequate directions on withdrawal?
(e)        Whether the Judge’s direction as to party liability sufficiently differentiated between liability under subs 66(1) and (2) and as between the two female defendants.
Given that Ms Rameka was a co-defendant with Ms Ahsin, the appeal by Ms Ahsin will be relisted for hearing at the same time as the hearing of the present appeal. We note that Ms Hall appeared as junior counsel for Ms Ahsin when her appeal was heard and has acted as counsel for Ms Rameka in respect of the present leave application. Representation at the appeal will necessarily require some consideration.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Raeleen Matewai Noyle Rameka versus The Queen was adjudicated, with the appeal focusing on the decision made by the Court of Appeal regarding Ms Rameka's conviction. The presiding judges were Elias CJ, McGrath, and William Young JJ. Counsel for the applicant was E A Hall, while M F Laracy represented the respondent. The judgment was delivered on 14 November 2013. The primary issue before the court was whether the Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing Ms Rameka's appeal, and leave to appeal was granted with a specific focus on several legal questions.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included whether the trial judge was obligated to provide a direction to the jury on the necessity of unanimity in determining liability under certain subsections of the legislation. Additionally, the court examined if the Court of Appeal was correct in finding that the evidence was insufficient to allow the jury to consider the charge under the specified section. The court also deliberated on whether a miscarriage of justice occurred because the jury was left to decide on the liability under this section, and if the jury was adequately instructed on the concept of withdrawal. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the judge's instructions to the jury sufficiently distinguished between different forms of liability and between the two female defendants involved in the case.

The reasoning provided by the court centred on the necessity of a unanimity direction by the trial judge, the sufficiency of the evidence for the jury to consider the charge, and the potential miscarriage of justice if the jury was not properly directed. The court concluded that the appeal was to be heard alongside the appeal of Ms Ahsin, a co-defendant, and noted that the junior counsel who represented Ms Ahsin in her appeal had now appeared as senior counsel for Ms Rameka in the present appeal. This necessitated consideration of the representation arrangements for the appeal. The court granted leave to appeal and specified the question to be addressed during the appeal hearing.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established