Rhys Michael Cullen v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 68/2014
[2014] NZSC 148

BETWEEN	RHYS MICHAEL CULLEN Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in Person J Mildenhall for Respondent
Judgment:	22 October 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Cullen v R [2014] NZCA 325).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Mr Cullen’s appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Without narrowing the scope of the approved ground of appeal, the Court wishes the parties to address the following matters in the course of their argument:
(a)Can the actions and states of mind of the employees other than the appellant be attributed to Tamaki Metals Ltd as to (i) possession, and (ii) recklessness?
(b)For the purposes of s 246 of the Crimes Act 1961, at what point was “the act of receiving” by Tamaki Metals Ltd complete?
(c)For the purposes of s 246(3) of the Crimes Act, can there be more than one “act of receiving” by the same offender in relation to the same property?
Although the Court will not formally review the correctness of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Cullen v R [2012] NZCA 413, the parties are not restricted in their arguments by the assumption that it was correctly decided.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rhys Michael Cullen applied for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence, which was previously dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The applicant was convicted of charges under the Crimes Act 1961, specifically for receiving stolen property, being part of an organised criminal group and engaging in extended criminal activity. The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether the Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing the applicant's appeal, focusing on the attribution of the actions and states of mind of employees to Tamaki Metals Ltd, the completion of the act of receiving, and whether multiple acts of receiving can occur in relation to the same property by the same offender.

The court identified three key issues for the parties to address: (a) the attribution of the actions and states of mind of employees to Tamaki Metals Ltd regarding possession and recklessness, (b) the point at which the act of receiving by Tamaki Metals Ltd was complete, and (c) whether there can be more than one act of receiving by the same offender in relation to the same property. The Supreme Court noted that while it would not formally review the correctness of the Court of Appeal's judgment, the parties were not restricted in their arguments by the assumption that it was correctly decided.

The Supreme Court granted the application for leave to appeal and approved the question for argument, which was whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Mr Cullen's appeal. This decision allowed the applicant to pursue his appeal on the specified grounds, with the case now proceeding to argument on the identified issues.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established