WOODCOCK v R SC 110/2010
Leave to appeal was dismissed because there was no basis to conclude the judge erred in giving further directions after the jury's notification and no miscarriage of justice could have arisen from the subsequent deliberations and majority verdicts.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 110/2010
- Parties
- Applicant: Joshua Chris Woodcock; Respondent: The Queen
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 16 February 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court
- Outcome
- application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Majority Verdicts, Jury Directions, Miscarriage of Justice, Jury Deliberations, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Joshua Chris Woodcock
Applicant
The Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred by giving further directions after the jury notified the court they had agreed some or all verdicts
- 2 Whether a miscarriage of justice arose from the jury departing from an initial direction of unanimity to deliver majority verdicts
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was dismissed because there was no basis to conclude the judge erred in giving further directions after the jury's notification and no miscarriage of justice could have arisen from the subsequent deliberations and majority verdicts.
Court Disposition
application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Leave to appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
WOODCOCK v R SC 110/2010 16 February 2011IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 110/2010[2011] NZSC 8JOSHUA CHRIS WOODCOCKvTHE QUEENCourt: Elias CJ, Tipping and McGrath JJCounsel: W C Pyke for ApplicantM F Laracy for CrownJudgment: 16 February 2011JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.REASONS[1] The applicant was convicted on counts involving child violence including manslaughter, and wilful neglect. His appeal to the Court of Appeal against these convictions was dismissed.1 He now seeks leave to appeal to this Court on grounds arising from the jury's majority verdicts on all charges on which he was convicted, other than that of wilful neglect.[2] During jury deliberations, the trial Judge was notified that "the jury haveagreed verdicts some or all by a majority". The Judge had not at that stage givendirections on such verdicts but proceeded immediately to do so. The jury then1 [2010] NZCA 489.resumed deliberations for a further hour and a quarter before delivering their verdicts which, in relation to the charges indicated, were by a majority (11:1). The applicant wishes to argue that the Judge should, on receiving the notification, have immediately taken the verdicts that the jury had agreed on, rather than giving the further directions. We see no basis for argument that in the circumstances the course followed by the Judge was in error or that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.[3] The other proposed ground concerns the apparent departure by the jury in its deliberations, as revealed by the notification, from the Judge's initial direction that their verdict should be unanimous. We are satisfied that, in light of the Judge'sfurther directions, no miscarriage of justice could have arisen from the way in which the jury deliberated.[4] Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington