DICKEY v R [2023] NZCA 9
The Court has power to recall and reissue its judgment; it granted the recall, deleted or amended specified passages addressing Mr Brown's concerns and made limited amendments for Ms Epiha, and concluded that those amendments obviated the need for suppression orders.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] NZCA 9
- Parties
- Appellant: Georgia Rose Dickey; Appellant: Christopher James Brown; Appellant: Katrina Roma Epiha; Respondent: The King
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 10 February 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application to Recall Judgment Granted; Judgment Recalled and Reissued
- Outcome
- Application to recall judgment granted; judgment recalled and reissued with amendments; suppression orders not made
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Against Sentence, Judgment Recall, Suppression Orders, Redaction of Judgments
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Georgia Rose Dickey
Appellant
Christopher James Brown
Appellant
Katrina Roma Epiha
Appellant
The King
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application to Recall Judgment Granted; Judgment Recalled and Reissued
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court should recall its earlier judgment
- 2 Whether parts of the judgment relating to appellants' personal circumstances should be deleted or suppressed
- 3 Whether suppression orders were necessary after amendments
Ratio Decidendi
The Court has power to recall and reissue its judgment; it granted the recall, deleted or amended specified passages addressing Mr Brown's concerns and made limited amendments for Ms Epiha, and concluded that those amendments obviated the need for suppression orders.
Court Disposition
Application to recall judgment granted; judgment recalled and reissued with amendments; suppression orders not made
Orders
- Application to recall Court's judgment granted
- Original judgment [2023] NZCA 2 recalled and reissued with amendments at [30], [53], [65] and [75]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
DICKEY v R [2023] NZCA 9 [10 February 2023]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA393/2018[2023] NZCA 9BETWEEN GEORGIA ROSE DICKEYAppellantAND THE KINGRespondentCA27/2019BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER JAMES BROWNAppellantAND THE KINGRespondentCA645/2020BETWEEN KATRINA ROMA EPIHAAppellantAND THE KINGRespondentCourt: Miller, Collins and Simon France JJCounsel: D J More and F C D More for Appellant in CA393/2018F E Guy Kidd KC, L C Preston KC and K M Barker for Appellantin CA27/2019H G de Groot and T J Conder for Appellant in CA645/2020C A Brook, R K Thomson and T C Didsbury for Respondent inCA393/2018, CA27/2019 and CA645/2020Judgment:(On the papers)10 February 2023 at 12 noonJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application to recall this Court's judgment [2023] NZCA 2 is granted.B The judgment is recalled and reissued as described at [6].____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Collins J)[1] On 27 January 2023, this Court issued a judgment allowing the appeals againstsentence brought by all three appellants.1 Thereafter counsel for Mr Brown andMs Epiha applied for a recall of the judgment and for parts of the judgment relating totheir clients' personal circumstances to be either deleted or made subject to asuppression order.[2] We have granted the request made by Mr Brown by either deleting or amendingin the reissued judgment the matters that caused him concern. Those changes are at[30] and [53] of the reissued judgment.[3] We have granted part of Ms Epiha's application. Those changes are at [65] and[75] of the reissued judgment. The parts of Ms Epiha's application that we have notgranted are, in the Court's assessment, necessary in order for a reader of the judgmentto properly understand the Court's reasons.[4] Because the Court has amended its judgment to accommodate all of the issuesraised by Mr Brown and a number of the issues raised by Ms Epiha, there is no needfor suppression orders.[5] The application for recall of the Court's judgment is granted.1 Dickey v R [2023] NZCA 2.[6] The judgment is recalled and reissued with amendments at [30], [53], [65] and[75].Solicitors:Scholefield Law, Invercargill for Appellant in CA393/2018Holland Beckett Law, Tauranga for Appellant in CA645/2020Crown Law Office | Te Tari Ture o te Karauna, Wellington for Respondent in CA393/2018,CA27/2019 and CA645/2020