Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Harrison, Goddard and Andrews JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
|
|
- Victor Lane
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA761/2013 [2014] NZCA 375 BETWEEN AND BENJAMIN VAINU Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 29 July 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Goddard and Andrews JJ J E Juran for Appellant J M Jelas for Respondent 6 August 2014 at pm JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted. B The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed. REASONS OF THE COURT (Given by Andrews J) Introduction [1] On 13 April 2010 a Nissan Cefiro motor vehicle was stolen from Panmure. On 14 April 2010 two Armourguard employees were collecting cash from the BNZ bank at Botany Town Centre. As they were entering the bank two men wearing light blue disposable overalls (including head covering and face masks) ran into the bank. One of the men was armed with a sawn-off single barrel pump action shotgun. The man grabbed a cash box carried by one of the Armourguard employees and fled the VAINU V R CA761/2013 [2014] NZCA 375 [6 August 2014]
2 scene. The two men were seen getting into the Nissan Cefiro, which was driven by a third man wearing light blue overalls. [2] Mr Vainu was charged with unlawfully taking a motor vehicle and aggravated robbery. It was alleged that he was the driver of the Nissan. Sauleao Lavea and Sanerivi Tauaese were alleged to have been the two men who went into the bank. Mr Lavea and Sanerivi Tauaese were also charged in respect of another armed robbery, some two weeks later. After a trial in the Manukau District Court before Judge McNaughton and a jury, all three were found guilty and convicted on 12 August 2013 on all charges. On 11 October 2013 Mr Vainu was sentenced to eight years imprisonment, and ordered to serve a minimum period of imprisonment of four years. 1 [3] Mr Vainu has appealed against both his conviction and his sentence. He filed his notice of appeal three days out of time but, there being no objection to this short delay, we grant the application for an extension of time to appeal. Appeal against conviction Admissibility of identification evidence [4] Mr Vainu s first ground of appeal is a challenge to a ruling given by Judge McNaughton during the trial, that identification evidence given by Sanerivi Tauaese s brother, Tauaese Tauaese (Ese Tauaese) was admissible. 2 [5] At a voir dire, Detective Sergeant Mariu gave evidence that he interviewed Ese Tauaese. He said that Sanerivi Tauaese and Sauleao Lavea had by then been arrested, but Mr Vainu was not a suspect at the time, and he had no reason to believe that Ese Tauaese knew anything about the offending. He hoped that Ese Tauaese would identify associates of his brother, that may lead to further Police inquiries. [6] Detective Sergeant Mariu first showed Ese Tauaese a booklet of photographs, prepared by another Police Officer, Detective Cleary, as an investigative tool to be 1 2 R v Vainu DC Manukau CRI , 11 October R v Tauaese DC Manukau CRI , 29 July 2013.
3 shown only to associates and family of the arrested men. The purpose was to establish identities, nicknames, and possible information about the parties involvement in the offences. Mr Vainu s photo was included, as the Police had a record of him being associated with Sanerivi Tauaese. Detective Sergeant Mariu acknowledged that showing Ese Tauaese the photo booklet was not a formal identification procedure under s 45(3) of the Evidence Act [7] Ese Tauaese made notes under the photographs of the men he recognised. He wrote Unique under the photograph of Mr Vainu, and signed his note. 3 Detective Sergeant Mariu then took a formal statement from Ese Tauaese, in which he said that Mr Vainu was one of three men he had seen at the Tauaese home about a week before his birthday on 20 April He said that all three men were wearing one piece baby blue suits. The detective said he considered whether to carry out a formal identification procedure but decided not to, as he thought any such procedure would be tainted by the earlier identification. [8] It was submitted to the Judge that the evidence of Ese Tauaese s identification was inadmissible as no formal identification procedure had been undertaken, and there was no good reason under s 45(4) of the Evidence Act for dispensing with the formal procedure. [9] The Judge concluded that the identification was reliable, and that there were good reasons for not carrying out a formal identification procedure, in that at the time, no officer involved in the investigation or prosecution of the offending could reasonably have anticipated that identification would be an issue at Mr Vainu s trial. 4 Accordingly, he ruled the identification evidence admissible. [10] When he gave evidence in the trial, Ese Tauaese said that he recognised Unique when he saw him in his brother s room when he went past the room in the sleepout they shared. They had acknowledged each other when Ese Tauaese went past. He said he and Unique had both been at Hillary College for about a year, some six years previously. 3 4 At trial, the appellant accepted that he was known by the nickname Uneek. A reference to the Evidence Act 2006, s 45(4): good reasons for not following a formal procedure.
4 [11] On appeal, Mr Juran submitted that the Judge was wrong to find a good reason not to carry out a formal identification procedure, as it would have been obvious that identification would be an issue, as all people involved in the robbery had tried to disguise their identity by wearing overalls, head coverings, and masks. He also submitted that the Police should have interviewed Ese Tauaese before showing him the photographs. Mr Juran further submitted that the circumstances of the identification were not such as to produce a reliable identification. He referred to the cross-examination of Ese Tauaese at trial, when it was put to him that he had not correctly identified Mr Vainu. [12] Ms Jelas acknowledged that the Judge was wrong in his conclusion that the Police Officers could not reasonably have anticipated that identification would be an issue at trial. However, she submitted that Ese Tauaese had recognised Mr Vainu, in circumstances in which the identification was reliable. Accordingly, a formal identification procedure was not required. [13] We accept that the Police Officers could reasonably have anticipated that identification would be an issue at trial. However, we cannot conclude that the visual identification was inadmissible. Ese Tauaese recognised Mr Vainu as someone he had known previously. Carrying out a formal identification procedure would then have been of no practical utility. 5 We are satisfied that the circumstances in which that occurred have produced a reliable identification. [14] It was open to Mr Vainu to challenge the identification at trial, and he did so, but the aspects on which Ese Tauaese was cross-examined do not lead us to a conclusion that the identification evidence should have been excluded. The Judge s summing-up [15] Mr Vainu s second ground of appeal is that the Judge watered down the warning as to visual identification evidence, and did not fairly set out Mr Vainu s defence when summing up to the jury at the end of the trial. Save for one respect, 5 See Harney v Police [2011] NZSC 107, [2012] 1 NZLR 725 at [17] and [26].
5 which we refer to below, Ms Jelas submitted that there was no error in the summing-up. [16] Mr Juran submitted that by beginning his direction as to identification evidence with the words the law requires me to give you a warning about identification evidence, the Judge was sending a message to the jury that the issue was of less importance. 6 We do not agree. The Judge was stressing the importance of the need for caution when considering Ese Tauaese s visual identification. The Judge referred again to the importance of the identification warning, and repeated it, later in his summing-up. [17] Mr Juran also submitted that the Judge had failed to set out adequately the nature of Mr Vainu s challenge to Ese Tauaese s evidence. We do not accept that submission. The challenges to the identification, and Ese Tauaese s alleged failings in making the identification, were set out by the Judge, and squarely before the jury. [18] The one area in which we find, and Ms Jelas acknowledged, the Judge to have erred in his summing-up was at the end of the Judge s discussion of the appellant s case where the Judge said: [82] There is just one last thing I [want] to say about the submissions for Mr Vainu before we stop. You will remember Mr Juran talked to you about a DNA sample and he said well Mr Vainu gave a swab, one of these buccal swabs, he supplied a DNA sample and he said to you that is consistent with innocence. Well the flip side of that coin is that anyone who did not, anyone who did not prov[id]e a DNA sample is not innocent. Now all of the accused have a right to refuse to provide the police with a DNA sample, just as they have a right to refuse to make a statement, just as they have a right to refuse not [sic] to give evidence in their defence. That is their right, and in exercising any of those rights you should take nothing for or against them. So just put that out of your mind. That was not a valid submission to make and inferentially it might prejudice you in relation to the case against the other two accused. So it does not count for or against anyone whether they provided a DNA sample. On the defence case Mr Vainu was incorrectly identified, he was not at the meeting at the sleep-out he was not at the scene of the robbery. [19] Mr Juran submitted that in referring to the flip side, and by saying that he had not made a valid submission, the Judge was belittling this aspect of the 6 R v Tauaese DC Manukau CRI , 12 August 2013 at [56].
6 defence case. He submitted that the Judge need only have said that no adverse inference should be taken against any of the co-accused as a result of their not having provided DNA samples. But given the evidence that Mr Vainu had given a DNA sample, the Judge was entitled to make a point of that when addressing the jury. [20] Ms Jelas accepted that the Judge s comment was unfortunate, but submitted that his having volunteered a DNA sample was not a major plank of Mr Vainu s case, which was that he had been wrongly identified. She submitted that there had been no miscarriage of justice. [21] We agree that the Judge s direction could have been better worded, but we accept Ms Jelas s submission that Mr Vainu s defence was squarely before the jury, and there has been no miscarriage of justice. Summary: appeal against conviction [22] Both grounds of the appeal against conviction fail. Appeal against sentence [23] The Judge adopted a starting point of seven years imprisonment, which was the same as that adopted for Mr Vainu s co-offenders. He then applied an uplift of 18 months to reflect Mr Vainu s history of convictions for violent offending, noting also that Mr Vainu had recently been released from prison when he committed the present offences. The Judge allowed a discount of six months in recognition of Mr Vainu s rehabilitative prospects, shown by his having completed a number of programmes (including life skills, alcohol and drugs, literacy and numeracy, and tikanga Māori programmes) while on remand in custody, and having said he was willing to undertake suitable rehabilitative programmes while in custody. The Judge refused to make any distinction between the roles played by Mr Vainu and his co-offenders, or to allow a discount for the period he spent on restrictive bail conditions. 7 7 Mr Vainu was on EM bail with a 24-hour curfew between 22 February 2012 and 23 July 2013.
7 [24] Mr Juran submitted that the starting point of seven years was high, but conceded that it was available to the Judge. He submitted that the Judge erred in applying an uplift of 18 months for previous convictions, and in not allowing a discount for the period of 17 months spent on EM bail, with a 24-hour curfew. He also submitted that Mr Vainu s end sentence of eight years imprisonment did not show proper recognition for the fact that he was found guilty of one robbery, whereas his co-offenders received sentences of nine years imprisonment having committed two aggravated robberies. [25] Ms Jelas submitted that the uplift for previous convictions was well justified in the light of Mr Vainu s extensive list of previous convictions, and the fact that the present offending had occurred only about one month after he had been released after serving a prison sentence imposed in respect of offending between March 2005 and January She referred also to the probation officer s assessment of Mr Vainu as being at a high risk of reoffending, and having no motivation to change. While the uplift was high, the reoffending demonstrated the need for a strong deterrent sentence and one which would provide protection of the public. Ms Jelas acknowledged that a discount may be given for time spent on restrictive bail conditions but submitted that there is no right to such a discount. She noted that there was no record of any proven breaches of bail. [26] When considering an appeal against sentence, this Court focuses on the end sentence, not the methodology adopted in reaching it. It is only where the end sentence can be said to be manifestly excessive that the appeal will succeed. [27] In this case, while another judge may have allowed greater discounts for Mr Vainu s rehabilitative prospects, we are not satisfied that the end sentence was manifestly excessive. We do not accept that the Judge was wrong to conclude that a sentence that focused on deterrence and protection of the public was required given the circumstances of Mr Vainu s offending, and his previous convictions. He has a significant history of serious violent offending, and committed the present offence very shortly after he had been released from serving a term of imprisonment. While the uplift applied of 18 months was at the outer limit of permissibility, we accept that
8 it could be justified in these particular circumstances. There is no doubt that a deterrent sentence was required. [28] Nor was the Judge wrong not to allow a discount in respect of the time spent on EM bail. Mr Vainu had sought EM bail, rather than a remand in custody, and it was granted. While another judge may have allowed a discount against the end sentence, there was no obligation to allow one. [29] We do not accept Mr Vainu s submission that his sentence was manifestly excessive when compared with the sentences imposed on his co-offenders, who were convicted in respect of two armed robberies. The sentences imposed on each of them were tailored to their individual circumstances. When the sentences are examined, it is apparent that there was no unfair disparity. [30] A starting point of 10 years imprisonment was adopted for the two charges of aggravated robbery, in totality, for both Sanerivi Tauaese and Sauleao Lavea. The Judge found that no uplift for previous convictions was required in the case of Mr Tauaese, and his rehabilitative prospects justified a discount of one year, leading to an end sentence of nine years imprisonment. 8 Mr Lavea had a significant history of previous offending, leading to an uplift of two years. A discount of two years was allowed for Mr Lavea s youth, remorse, and commitment to rehabilitation, and a further discount of one year was allowed for his late guilty pleas, leading to an end sentence of nine years imprisonment. 9 [31] We are not persuaded that Mr Vainu s end sentence was manifestly excessive and his appeal against sentence is dismissed. Result [32] The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed. Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent 8 9 R v Tauaese Manukau CRI , 11 October R v Lavea Manukau CRI , 11 October 2013.
Appellant. JOHN DAVID WRIGHT Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA831/2013 [2014] NZCA 119 BETWEEN AND THE QUEEN Appellant JOHN DAVID WRIGHT Respondent Hearing: 12 March 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Wild, Goddard and Clifford
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal, which is against both conviction and sentence, is dismissed. REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA592/2012 [2013] NZCA 339 BETWEEN AND MARK HETERAKA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 15 July 2013 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Wild, Heath and Keane JJ L L Heah
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC CHANTELL PENE NGATIKAI Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI 2014-004-000413 [2014] NZHC 3294 BETWEEN AND CHANTELL PENE NGATIKAI Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 16 December 2014 Appearances:
More informationKARL MURRAY BROWN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Ellen France, MacKenzie and Mallon JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA686/2013 [2014] NZCA 93 BETWEEN AND KARL MURRAY BROWN Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 18 February 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Ellen France, MacKenzie
More informationJOEL DYLAN BOWLIN Applicant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Harrison, Fogarty and Dobson JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
23 April 2015 at 8 am - DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA686/2014 [2015] NZCA 137 BETWEEN AND JOEL DYLAN BOWLIN Applicant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 5 March 2015 Court: Counsel: Judgment:
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Williams, Venning and Mander JJ. A G V Rogers, M H McIvor and J Kim for Appellant M H Cooke for Respondent
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Miller, Ronald Young and Clifford JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Miller J)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA790/2013 [2014] NZCA 106 BETWEEN AND UGESH DUTT Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 4 March 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Miller, Ronald Young and Clifford
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC MITCHELL DUDGEON MCLEISH Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2015-409-000048 [2015] NZHC 1610 BETWEEN AND MITCHELL DUDGEON MCLEISH Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 9 July 2015 Appearances:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC PAUL ANDREW HAMPTON Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI-2014-463-000062 [2014] NZHC 2423 PAUL ANDREW HAMPTON Appellant v Hearing: 1 October 2014 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Appearances: Rebecca Plunket
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA364/2015 [2016] NZCA 469 BETWEEN AND DEAN JOHN DREVER Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 22 September 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Brown and Brewer
More informationAppellant. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA129/2016 [2016] NZCA 133 BETWEEN AND MICHAEL MARINO Appellant THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent Hearing: 4 April 2016 Court: Counsel:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CRI THE QUEEN ROBERT JOHN BROWN SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREWS J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CRI 2005-020-003954 THE QUEEN v ROBERT JOHN BROWN Hearing: 30 July 2008 Appearances: C R Walker for the Crown D H Quilliam for the Prisoner Judgment: 30
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC Plaintiff. THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND First Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2016-404-000544 [2016] NZHC 2237 UNDER THE Judicature Amendment Act 1972, Section 4 BETWEEN AND KARL NUKU Plaintiff THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC BENJAMIN DUNCAN ROSS Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2014-485-63 [2014] NZHC 2388 BETWEEN AND BENJAMIN DUNCAN ROSS Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 23 September 2014 Appearances: C
More informationI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA116/2017 [2018] NZCA 477. CHRISTOPHER ROBERT HALPIN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY SS 203 AND 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TAURANGA CRI [2016] NZDC NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TAURANGA CRI-2015-070-003935 [2016] NZDC 15620 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor v ROYCE THOMAS MATOE Defendant Hearing: 16 August 2016 Appearances:
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC 2357 THE QUEEN FABIAN JESSIE MIKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2013-009-001924 [2013] NZHC 2357 THE QUEEN v Hearing: 10 September 2013 FABIAN JESSIE MIKA Appearances: P J Shamy and MAJ Elliott for Crown J
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC 81. Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent (ORAL) JUDGMENT OF FAIRE J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI-2014-463-95 [2015] NZHC 81 BETWEEN AND PETER BILL GRAY Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 4 February 2015 Counsel: M McGhie for appellant
More informationJustice Sector Outlook
Justice Sector Outlook March 216 quarter Contents Summary of the current quarter 1 Environmental factors are mixed 2 Emerging risks of upwards pipeline pressures 3 Criminal justice pipeline 4 Pipeline
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI [2017] NZDC THE QUEEN TULUA DANIEL TANOAI (AKA) ARETA MARK TANOAI
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI-2017-004-004019 [2017] NZDC 20334 THE QUEEN v TULUA DANIEL TANOAI (AKA) ARETA MARK TANOAI Hearing: 8 September 2017 Appearances: A Linterman for the Crown M Pecotic
More informationCriminal Litigation Accreditation Scheme Standards of competence for the accreditation of solicitors representing clients in the magistrates court
Criminal Litigation Accreditation Scheme Standards of competence for the accreditation of solicitors representing clients in the magistrates court Contents Part 1 Underpinning knowledge...3 1.1 An understanding
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI [2018] NZHC 3165 THE QUEEN VICTORIA LOUIS JULIAN SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI-2017-092-011344 [2018] NZHC 3165 THE QUEEN v VICTORIA LOUIS JULIAN Hearing: 4 December 2018 Appearances:
More informationTHE QUEEN JOHN MICHAEL COCKER. Counsel: K Stone for the Crown I M Antunovic for the Accused
NOT RECOMMENDED IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CRI-2004-085-1865 WELLINGTON REGISTRY THE QUEEN JOHN MICHAEL COCKER Counsel: K Stone for the Crown I M Antunovic for the Accused Sentencing: 15 October
More informationLegal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No 4 and Saving Provisions) Order 2012
Page 1 2012 (Commencement No 4 and Saving Provisions) Order 2012 (SI 2012/2906) 2012 No 2906 (C 114) CRIMINAL LAW, ENGLAND AND WALES DEFENCE Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement
More informationDAVID KEITH SILBY Applicant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent. A J Ewing for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA428/2016 [2016] NZCA 592 BETWEEN AND DAVID KEITH SILBY Applicant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 18 October 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Cooper, Brewer
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE CRI [2018] NZHC 770. Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE CRI-2018-483-1 [2018] NZHC 770 BETWEEN AND RUBEN HAWEA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 17 April 2018
More informationAggravating factors APPENDIX 2. Summary
APPENDIX 2 Aggravating factors Summary This guideline deals with those factors that may not be specifically identified in the applicable offencebased guideline, but may still be relevant to sentence depending
More informationPROCEDURE Simple Cautions. Number: F 0102 Date Published: 9 September 2015
1.0 Summary of Changes This procedure has been updated on its yearly review as follows: Included on the new Force procedure template; Amended throughout to reflect Athena; Updated in section 3.8 for OIC
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2016] NZHC 254 THE QUEEN STEAD NUKU NIGEL JOHN LAKE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI-2015-044-002617 [2016] NZHC 254 THE QUEEN v STEAD NUKU NIGEL JOHN LAKE Hearing: 24 February 2016 Appearances: S McColgan for the Crown R M Mansfield
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO THIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS]. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU CRI [2017] NZDC 25779
EDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO THIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS]. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU CRI-2015-004-017104 [2017] NZDC 25779 THE QUEEN v SHEN ZHANG ZHONG SHU HAN Hearing: 13 November
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA198/2016 [2017] NZCA 404. GEORGE CHARLIE BAKER Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Hearing: 31 July 2017
NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT IN OFFENDING OF 27 AUGUST 2009 REMAINS IN FORCE. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW
More informationBail Frequently Asked Questions
Bail Frequently Asked Questions What is Bail? When the police arrest and decide to charge someone with a criminal offence, the police may release that person ( the accused ) directly from the police station
More informationSection 810. This booklet explains the 810 process, what your rights are and how to get legal help.
INFORMATION FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA Section 810 The Criminal Code of Canada allows a judge or justice of the peace to require you to enter into a recognizance (like a peace bond) if there
More informationPolice stations. What happens when you are arrested
Police stations What happens when you are arrested This factsheet looks at what happens at the police station when the police think you have committed a crime. This factsheet may help you if you, or someone
More informationRHYS MICHAEL CULLEN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. White, Keane and MacKenzie JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA769/2013 [2014] NZCA 325 BETWEEN AND RHYS MICHAEL CULLEN Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 16 June 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: White, Keane and MacKenzie
More informationAPPROPRIATE ADULT AT LUTON POLICE STATION
PROCEDURES APPROPRIATE ADULT AT LUTON POLICE STATION Version 1 Date: August 2013 Version No Date of Review Brief Description Amended Section Editor Date for next Review V 1 August 2013 ARREST AND DETENTION
More informationThe Code. for Crown Prosecutors
The Code for Crown Prosecutors January 2013 Introduction 1.1 The Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences
More informationCONTENTS. Introduction Part 1: The nature of crime. Part 4: Sentencing and punishment. Part 2: The criminal investigation process
CONTENTS Introduction Part 1: The nature of crime 1.1 The meaning of crime 6 1.2 The elements of crime: actus reus, mens rea 8 1.3 Strict liability offences 10 1.4 Causation 12 1.5 Categories of crime
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Williams, 2010-Ohio-893.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JULIUS WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 17, 2000 STATE OF TENNESSEE V. EZRA SHAWN ERVIN AND ANDREW MCKINNEY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 17, 2000 STATE OF TENNESSEE V. EZRA SHAWN ERVIN AND ANDREW MCKINNEY Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County No. 222789
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: SOME NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED.
EDITORIAL NOTE: SOME NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU CRI-2016-092-011259 [2017] NZDC 10782 THE QUEEN v ISAIAH MICHAEL PEKA Hearing: 24 May 2017
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE CAP 2 OF THE REVISED LAWS OF GRENADA (SECTION 49)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES GRENADA CLAIM NO. GDAHCV 2012/ 0492 BETWEEN: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE CAP 2 OF THE
More informationKey Facts and Figures from the Criminal Justice System 2009/2010. March 2011
Key Facts and Figures from the Criminal Justice System 2009/2010 March 2011 Produced by: Matrix Evidence Ltd This booklet has been produced by Matrix Evidence Ltd. These statistics have been complied according
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 2705 THE QUEEN SHANE PIERRE HARRISON DILLIN PAKAI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2013-096-2316 [2014] NZHC 2705 THE QUEEN v Hearing: 31 October 2014 SHANE PIERRE HARRISON DILLIN PAKAI Counsel: G J Burston and J A Eng for the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2015-485-17 [2015] NZHC 2235 BETWEEN AND DINH TU DO Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 23 June 2015 Counsel: A Shaw for Appellant
More informationSentencing remarks of Mr Justice Kerr. The Queen v Aaron Jenkins and Emma Butterworth. Preston Crown Court. 3 March 2016
Sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Kerr The Queen v Aaron Jenkins and Emma Butterworth Preston Crown Court 3 March 2016 1. You may both remain seated for the moment. I will deal first with your case, Mr
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 3274 TELEISHA MCLAREN. S N McKenzie for Crown
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CRI-2014-425-000043 [2014] NZHC 3274 TELEISHA MCLAREN v Hearing: 15 December 2014 R Appearances: H T Young for Appellant S N McKenzie for Crown Judgment:
More informationWho s who in a Criminal Trial
Mock Criminal Trial Scenario Who s who in a Criminal Trial ACCUSED The accused is the person who is alleged to have committed the criminal offence, and who has been charged with committing it. Before being
More informationDrugs: evidence, testing and valuation Policy
Drugs: evidence, testing and valuation Policy Policy summary West Yorkshire Police complies with Authorised Professional Practice (APP) which contains information to assist policing, and has established
More informationCriminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2010
Digest No. 1819 Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2010 Date of Introduction: 15 November 2010 Portfolio: Select Committee: Published: 18 November 2010 by John McSoriley BA LL.B, Barrister,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v McVea [2004] QCA 380 PARTIES: R v McVEA, Peter Andrew (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 145 of 2004 SC No 337 of 2003 SC No 542 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI [2017] NZDC THE QUEEN JAE MOOK MOON HYUNG BOK LEE
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI-2016-004-000272 [2017] NZDC 17014 THE QUEEN v JAE MOOK MOON HYUNG BOK LEE Hearing: 2 August 2017 Appearances: F Culliney for the Crown P Hamlin for the Defendant Moon
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (ONTARIO) PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE REPORT
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (ONTARIO) PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE REPORT (Criminal Code, s. 625.1) (Criminal Proceedings Rules, Rule 28) (Form 17) NOTE: 1. This form must be completed in full in all cases, and
More informationJustice Committee. Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. Written submission from Victim Support Scotland
Justice Committee Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill Written submission from Victim Support Scotland INTRODUCTION 1. Victim Support Scotland welcomes the introduction of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA695/2014 [2016] NZCA 163 BETWEEN AND
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA135/03 THE QUEEN ROGER HOWARD MCEWEN
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA135/03 THE QUEEN v ROGER HOWARD MCEWEN Hearing: 19 June 2003 Coram: Glazebrook J Heath J Doogue J Appearances: D G Harvey for Appellant M F Laracy for Crown Judgment:
More informationLEVEL 6 - UNIT 18 CRIMINAL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS JANUARY 2015
LEVEL 6 - UNIT 18 CRIMINAL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS JANUARY 2015 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT PALMERSTON NORTH CRI [2018] NZDC 1234 THE QUEEN MICKAL JAMES HAMMOND. S Lance for the Defendant
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT PALMERSTON NORTH CRI-2016-054-000949 [2018] NZDC 1234 THE QUEEN v MICKAL JAMES HAMMOND Hearing: 25 January 2018 Appearances: J Harvey for the Crown S Lance for the Defendant Judgment:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY CRI-2013-470-7 [2013] NZHC 1350 BETWEEN AND CHERYL MCVEIGH Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 30 May 2013 Appearances: TA Castle for Appellant
More informationWHAT DO I DO IF I AM ARRESTED?
WHAT DO I DO IF I AM ARRESTED? An information leaflet by Centre for Justice Talking to the Police A police officer may speak with any member of the public at any time and is entitled to ask questions
More informationIn the Courtroom What to expect if your son/daughter with a learning disability has to go to court
In the Courtroom What to expect if your son/daughter with a learning disability has to go to court Serena Brady & Glynis Murphy Other booklets in the series: SAFER-IDD info At the Police Station Information
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA254/2014 [2015]
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Lowe v Director-General, Department of Corrective Services [2004] QSC 418 PETER ANTHONY LOWE (applicant) v DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Randerson, Heath and Asher JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Heath J)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA281/2013 [2013] NZCA 623 BETWEEN AND IORITANA TUAU Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 18 November 2013 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Randerson, Heath and Asher
More informationCriminal Justice Process
Criminal Justice Process 1. Describe the basic steps that are followed when a crime is investigated. (See the chart on page 135) Search and Seizure Warrant file an affidavit (sworn statement of facts)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Her Majesty the Queen. and. Christopher Raymond O Halloran. Before: The Honourable Justice Wayne D.
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: R. v. O Halloran 2013 PESC 22 Date: 20131029 Docket: S2-GC-130 Registry: Summerside Her Majesty the Queen and Christopher Raymond O Halloran Before: The
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Cornwall [2005] QCA 345 PARTIES: R v CORNWALL, Jason Colin (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 156 of 2005 DC No 147 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING
More informationSENTENCE NOTE OF MR JUSTICE GOOSE 25 MAY 2018
IN THE CROWN COURT AT BIRMINGHAM R v KAYNE ROBINSON, DARIELLE WILLIAMS, DEVONTE MAY & GEARY BARNETT SENTENCE NOTE OF MR JUSTICE GOOSE 25 MAY 2018 1. Kayne Robinson and Darielle Williams, you have both
More informationAppearances: Mrs. Grace McKenzie with Ms. Christilyn Benjamin for the Crown The Prisoner in Person. 2007: October 29 th, November 1 st and 6 th
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS (CRIMINAL JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 22 of 2007 THE QUEEN and HUBERT McLEOD Appearances: Mrs. Grace McKenzie with Ms. Christilyn Benjamin for the
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, AD 2014 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 19 of 2012 MELONIE COYE MICHAEL COYE MONEY EXCHANGE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, AD 2014 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 19 of 2012 MELONIE COYE MICHAEL COYE MONEY EXCHANGE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Appellants v THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE The Hon Mr. Justice Dennis
More informationSENTENCING SUBMISSIONS
) SENTENCING SUBMISSIONS ) I \ '. ) SENTENCING SUBMISSIONS "Sentencing is, in respect of most offenders, the only significant decision the criminal justice system is called upon to make" R. v. Gardiner
More informationVILIAMI ONE FUNGAVAKA Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Winkelmann, Woodhouse and Collins JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA644/2015 [2017] NZCA 195 BETWEEN AND VILIAMI ONE FUNGAVAKA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 9 March 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Winkelmann, Woodhouse and
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH CRI [2016] NZDC 4076 THE QUEEN MICHAEL STONE KIRSTY MENNER JOSHUA CLARK CHRISTOPHER MCGOVERIN
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH CRI-2015-009-002980 [2016] NZDC 4076 THE QUEEN v MICHAEL STONE KIRSTY MENNER JOSHUA CLARK CHRISTOPHER MCGOVERIN Hearing: 9 March 2016 Appearances: S Burdes for the
More informationISSUES. Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing. Prepared by: Andrew Mason
SENTENCING ISSUES Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, 1998 Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing Prepared by: Andrew Mason Also available to members at the SCDLA Web site:
More informationLEVI HOHEPA REUBEN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Appellant. Randerson, Clifford and Whata JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA454/2016 [2017] NZCA 138 BETWEEN AND LEVI HOHEPA REUBEN Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent CA473/2016 BETWEEN AND AKUHATUA TIHI Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing:
More informationDerbyshire Constabulary SIMPLE CAUTIONING OF ADULT OFFENDERS POLICY POLICY REFERENCE 06/122. This policy is suitable for Public Disclosure
Derbyshire Constabulary SIMPLE CAUTIONING OF ADULT OFFENDERS POLICY POLICY REFERENCE 06/122 This policy is suitable for Public Disclosure Owner of Doc: Head of Department, Criminal Justice Date Approved:
More informationAssessing the Impact of the Sentencing Council s Burglary Definitive Guideline on Sentencing Trends
Assessing the Impact of the Sentencing Council s Burglary Definitive Guideline on Sentencing Trends Summary - The burglary definitive guideline was implemented in January 2012, with the aim of regularising
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA142/07 [2007] NZCA 424 THE QUEEN v GEORGE DARREN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2012] NZHC TIMOTHY KYLE GARNHAM Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2012-485-000098 [2012] NZHC 3447 BETWEEN AND TIMOTHY KYLE GARNHAM Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 18 December 2012 Counsel: D A
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 60/2017 [2017] NZSC 119. VILIAMI ONE FUNGAVAKA Applicant. THE QUEEN Respondent
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 60/2017 [2017] NZSC 119 BETWEEN AND VILIAMI ONE FUNGAVAKA Applicant THE QUEEN Respondent Court: Counsel: Glazebrook, OʼRegan and Ellen France JJ M I Koya for Applicant
More informationADULT COURT PRONOUNCEMENT CARDS
ADULT COURT PRONOUNCEMENT CARDS Contents Sentencing: 1 Criminal behaviour order 1 Individual support order 2 Community order 3 Custodial sentence 7 Deferment of sentence 9 Discharge absolute 10 Discharge
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI [2018] NZHC 2196 THE QUEEN CHEVONNE WELLINGTON RIKI WELLINGTON
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI-2016-044-4279 [2018] NZHC 2196 THE QUEEN v CHEVONNE WELLINGTON RIKI WELLINGTON Hearing: 24 August
More informationIn the Youth Courtroom
In the Youth Courtroom What to expect if your son/daughter with a learning disability has to go to court Serena Brady & Glynis Murphy Other booklets in the series: SAFER-IDD info At the Police Station
More informationThe Criminal Justice System: From Charges to Sentencing
The Criminal Justice System: From Charges to Sentencing The Key Principles The aim the system is to protect and to regulate society, to punish offenders and to offer rehabilitation; The Government, through
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC SHAUN JOHN BOLTON Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV-2016-409-000046 [2016] NZHC 1297 BETWEEN AND SHAUN JOHN BOLTON Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 14 June 2016 Appearances: D J
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180405 Docket: CR 15-01-35037 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Stuart Cited as: 2018 MBQB 54 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, ) Counsel: ) ) for the Crown
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183 PARTIES: R v BRADFORTH, Nathan Paul (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 423 of 2002 SC No 551 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationCriminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill
Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill Submission of the New Zealand Police Association Submitted to the Justice and Electoral Committee 18 February 2011 Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation)
More informationAPPLICATIONS FOR MINISTERIAL REVIEW MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE ANNUAL REPORT 2018 MINISTER OF JUSTICE
APPLICATIONS FOR MINISTERIAL REVIEW MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE ANNUAL REPORT 2018 MINISTER OF JUSTICE Information contained in this publication or product may be reproduced, in part or in whole, and by any
More informationPolice and Criminal Matters
Police and Criminal Matters Whether you have been charged with a minor Police matter, such as a traffic offence, or are facing a serious criminal offence our solicitors are able to assist you. We can advise
More informationSergeants OSPRE Part 1 Statistics - Evidence
Sergeants OSPRE Part 1 Statistics - Evidence Topic 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Probability Rating 7 Question 6 Question 6 Question 5 Question 4 Question 5.6 Questions Grounds for Refusing Bail x2 Police Bail
More informationDOMESTIC ABUSE (SCOTLAND) BILL
DOMESTIC ABUSE (SCOTLAND) BILL FINANCIAL MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION 1. As required under Rule 9.3.2 of the Parliament s Standing Orders, this Financial Memorandum is published to accompany the Domestic Abuse
More informationYOU VE been CHARGED. with a CRIME What YOU. NEED to KNOW
YOU VE been CHARGED with a CRIME What YOU NEED to KNOW 1 This booklet is intended to provide general information only. If you require specific legal advice, please consult the appropriate legislation or
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 27, 2006 v No. 261603 Wayne Circuit Court JESSE ALEXANDER JOHNSON, LC No. 04-010282-01 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT Appellant. ALAVINE FELIUIA LIU Respondent. Randerson, Harrison and Miller JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA754/2012 [2014] NZCA 37 BETWEEN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT Appellant ALAVINE FELIUIA LIU Respondent Hearing: 5 February
More informationLaw 12 Substantive Assignments Reading Booklet
Law 12 Substantive Assignments Reading Booklet Reading # 1: Police and the Law Training and Qualifications Police officers have to go through both physical and academic training to become members of the
More informationLEVEL 6 - UNIT 18 CRIMINAL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JANUARY 2014
LEVEL 6 - UNIT 18 CRIMINAL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JANUARY 2014 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key
More informationCriminal Law Fact Sheet
What is criminal law? Murder, fraud, drugs, sex, robbery, drink driving stories of people committing crimes fills the news headlines every single day. It is an area of law which captures the imagination
More informationJustice Committee. Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. Written submission the Law Society of Scotland
Justice Committee Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill Written submission the Law Society of Scotland Introduction The Law Society of Scotland aims to lead and support a successful and respected Scottish legal
More information