GILLBANKS v R CA652/2014 [2014] NZCA 567
Because the appellants' convictions were predicated on liability as parties to an offence committed by the alleged primary offender and that primary offender was subsequently acquitted at retrial, the appellants' convictions could not be sustained; the Crown did not oppose quashing and did not seek retrial, so the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] NZCA 567
- Parties
- Appellant: Samuel Ingram Gillbanks; Appellant: Blake Paul Cunnard; Appellant: Jared Matthew Perry; Respondent: The Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 27 November 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals and Extension of Time Application
- Outcome
- Appeals allowed; convictions quashed; no retrial ordered; extension of time granted for each appellant
- Legal Topics
- Parties to Offence (s 66(2) Crimes Act 1961), Effect of Acquittal of Primary Offender on Secondary Liability, Extension of Time for Appeal, Retrial Discretion
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Samuel Ingram Gillbanks
Appellant
Blake Paul Cunnard
Appellant
Jared Matthew Perry
Appellant
The Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals and Extension of Time Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether convictions of appellants as parties under s 66(2) could stand after acquittal of alleged primary offender
- 2 Whether extension of time to appeal should be granted
- 3 Whether a retrial should be ordered
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellants' convictions were predicated on liability as parties to an offence committed by the alleged primary offender and that primary offender was subsequently acquitted at retrial, the appellants' convictions could not be sustained; the Crown did not oppose quashing and did not seek retrial, so the convictions were quashed and no retrial ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeals allowed; convictions quashed; no retrial ordered; extension of time granted for each appellant
Orders
- Application for extension of time to appeal granted for each appellant
- Gillbanks: conviction for manslaughter quashed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
GILLBANKS v R CA652/2014 [2014] NZCA 567 [27 November 2014]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA652/2014[2014] NZCA 567BETWEEN SAMUEL INGRAM GILLBANKSAppellantAND THE QUEENRespondentCA612/2014BETWEEN BLAKE PAUL CUNNARDAppellantAND THE QUEENRespondentCA606/2014BETWEEN JARED MATTHEW PERRYAppellantAND THE QUEENRespondentCourt: Harrison, Stevens and French JJCounsel: A J D Bamford for Appellant GillbanksG P Barkle for Appellant CunnardR B Squire QC for Appellant PerryC A Brook for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)27 November 2014 at 10.00 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA In the case of each appellant the application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.B Mr Gillbanks' appeal against conviction is allowed and his conviction formanslaughter is quashed.C Mr Cunnard's appeal against conviction is allowed and his conviction for murder is quashed.D Mr Perry's appeal against conviction is allowed and his conviction formanslaughter is quashed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by French J)[1] Messrs Gillbanks, Cunnard and Perry (the appellants) were all charged with offences arising out of the death of Mr Troy Minto. They were charged on the basis that they were parties under s 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 to the alleged culpable homicide of Mr Minto by Mr Blair McNaughton.[2] Following trial, Mr McNaughton was convicted of murder and the appellants were convicted of the following offences:(a) Mr Gillbanks – convicted of manslaughter as a party;(b) Mr Cunnard – convicted of murder as a party; and(c) Mr Perry – convicted of manslaughter as a party.[3] Mr McNaughton appealed his conviction. His appeal was allowed,1 and at a subsequent retrial held in September 2014 he was acquitted of murder.[4] The appellants then filed appeals against their respective convictions.[5] The Crown accepts that in light of the acquittal of the alleged primaryoffender, the appellants' convictions for manslaughter and murder are not sustainable1 McNaughton v R [2013] NZCA 657, [2014] 2 NZLR 467.and should be quashed. It therefore does not oppose the appeals. The Crown also advises that it does not seek an order for a retrial.[6] We are satisfied that in the circumstances these appeals can be dealt with on the papers without the need for a hearing.2[7] We are also satisfied that the following orders should be made:(a) In the case of each appellant the application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.(b) Mr Gillbanks' appeal against conviction is allowed and his convictionfor manslaughter is quashed.(c) Mr Cunnard's appeal against conviction is allowed and his convictionfor murder is quashed.(d) Mr Perry's appeal against conviction is allowed and his conviction for manslaughter is quashed.[8] There will be no order for a retrial in respect of any of the appellants.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent2 Crimes Act 1961, s 392A.