The Queen v Atkins; The Queen v Taylor

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA44/07
CA96/07
[2007] NZCA 103

THE QUEEN

ALBERT TIPU ATKINS
POI COLIN TAYLOR

Court:Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:N J Sainsbury for Appellant Atkins

I M Antunovic for Appellant Taylor
M D Downs for Crown
Judgment (On the papers): 29 March 2007 at 10.00am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION ARE ALLOWED, THE CONVICTIONS QUASHED AND A RETRIAL ORDERED.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Glazebrook J)

Introduction

Mr Atkins and Mr Taylor were convicted of manslaughter as parties under s 66(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 after a jury trial in Wellington. They appeal against those convictions.

Factual background

Mr Atkins and Mr Taylor were part of a group who attacked members of a rival gang with fists, boots and bottles. In the course of the attack one of the group (since convicted of murder) stabbed the victim with a knife, killing him. There was no evidence at trial that Mr Atkins and Mr Taylor knew that the killer was carrying a knife.
In accordance with the authorities as then understood, the jury was directed that, if they concluded that the perpetrator was guilty of murder, Mr Atkins and Mr Taylor would be guilty of manslaughter if they intended to assist each other (including the killer) in an assault on the victim and participated in the assault for that purpose.

Related appeal allowed

The appeal of one of the co-accused of Mr Atkins and Mr Taylor, was allowed by this Court on 21 March 2007 in R v Aupouri [2007] NZCA 86.
This was on the basis of this Court’s decision in R v Hartley [2007] NZCA 31, where the Court held that, where liability as a party is alleged under s 66(1)(b) ‑ (d), the Crown is required to prove that the alleged party was assisting in offending of the type which actually occurred.
It is accepted by the Crown that the position of Mr Atkins and Mr Taylor cannot be distinguished from that of Mr Aupouri.

Result

As a consequence, the appeals are allowed, the convictions quashed and a retrial ordered.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in The Queen v Atkins; The Queen v Taylor was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellants, Albert Tipu Atkins and Poi Colin Taylor, were convicted of manslaughter under section 66(1) of the Crimes Act 1961. They were found to be parties to the offence after participating in an assault on a member of a rival gang, during which the victim was fatally stabbed by another member of the group. Atkins and Taylor were not aware that the individual who carried the knife intended to use it. The primary legal issue in this appeal was whether the Crown had sufficiently proven that Atkins and Taylor were assisting in the type of offending that actually occurred, as required by section 66(1)(b)-(d) of the Crimes Act 1961. This issue arose from the Court's decision in R v Hartley [2007] NZCA 31, which established that the Crown must prove the accused was assisting in the specific type of offending that took place.

The Court of Appeal held that Atkins and Taylor's situation was analogous to that of Mr Aupouri, whose appeal was allowed on similar grounds in R v Aupouri [2007] NZCA 86. The Court concluded that the Crown had not met the burden of proving that Atkins and Taylor were assisting in the type of offending that actually occurred, namely the fatal stabbing by a co-offender. Consequently, the convictions of Atkins and Taylor were quashed, and a retrial was ordered. This decision underscores the necessity for the Crown to establish that a party to an offence was assisting in the specific type of offending that took place, in line with the Court's ruling in R v Hartley.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established