Rolleston v The Queen

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANT UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS OR NAMED WITNESS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 17/2019
[2019] NZSC 32

BETWEEN	BROOKE CHRISTIE ROLLESTON Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

SC 18/2019
BETWEEN	BRANDON JAMES ROCHE Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	William Young, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	E Huda for Applicants K L Kensington for Respondent
Judgment:	21 March 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted to the applicants (Rolleston v R [2018] NZCA 611).
BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

There will be an initial hearing on the appeal to determine whether or not orders should be made directing an independent practitioner to interview the jury foreperson or jury members more generally.

Solicitors:
Patient & Williams, Christchurch for Applicants
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was presented with two appeals against conviction by Brooke Christie Rolleston and Brandon James Roche. The applicants contested their convictions for separate offences, with Rolleston appealing against a conviction for murder and Roche appealing against a conviction for aggravated robbery. The Court of Appeal had dismissed both appeals, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Appeal had correctly dismissed the appeals against conviction. The applicants argued that the Court of Appeal had erred in its approach to certain evidentiary matters and in the application of legal principles.

The Supreme Court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the reasoning of the Court of Appeal. The court determined that the appeal should be heard, with a focus on whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its approach. The Supreme Court identified that an initial hearing would be required to determine if orders should be made for an independent practitioner to interview the jury foreperson or members more generally. This decision underscored the importance of ensuring a fair trial and the proper application of legal principles in criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal for both applicants and approved the question regarding the correctness of the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the conviction appeals. The court emphasised the necessity of a thorough examination of the issues raised in the appeals to ensure justice is served. Further directions were provided to the parties to prepare for the initial hearing, which would focus on the appropriate steps to be taken concerning jury interviews.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established