Y v The Queen

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 40/2013
[2013] NZSC 62

BETWEEN	Y (SC 40/2013) Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	M Wilkinson-Smith for Applicant M D Downs for Respondent
Judgment:	2 July 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved ground is:

Were the admitted facts in the summary of facts capable
in law of constituting offences against ss 132(3) and 134(3)
of the Crimes Act 1961?

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Crown Law for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Y v The Queen is an appeal concerning the admissibility of certain facts in a criminal case. The applicant, Y, appealed against a decision that found him guilty of two counts of indecent assault. The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard the appeal and the panel consisted of McGrath, William Young, and Glazebrook JJ. The issue before the Court was whether the facts admitted in the summary of facts were capable of constituting the offences under sections 132(3) and 134(3) of the Crimes Act 1961. The Court was tasked with determining if the trial judge had erred in law when he admitted certain facts as sufficient evidence to support the applicant's convictions.

The Court held that the trial judge had erred in law by admitting certain facts as evidence. The Court found that the admitted facts did not constitute the offences as defined under sections 132(3) and 134(3) of the Crimes Act 1961. The Court held that the trial judge had failed to consider the necessary elements of the offences and had instead admitted facts that were not legally sufficient to support the applicant's convictions. The Court held that the trial judge's error in law was a significant one, and that it had the potential to lead to an unsafe and unsatisfactory result. The Court found that the appeal should be allowed, and that leave to appeal should be granted.

The Court granted leave to appeal on the approved ground that the admitted facts in the summary of facts were not capable in law of constituting the offences under sections 132(3) and 134(3) of the Crimes Act 1961. The Court held that the trial judge had erred in law when he admitted certain facts as evidence and that this error had the potential to lead to an unsafe and unsatisfactory result. The Court found that the appeal should be allowed and that the convictions of the applicant should be quashed. The Court did not make any further orders as the matter would be remitted back to the trial court for a new trial.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established