JONES v POLICE [2022] NZHC 2300
Because trial counsel failed to obtain a brief of evidence and failed to provide detailed advice about whether the appellant should testify, those omissions constituted counsel error causing a miscarriage of justice; accordingly the appeal is allowed, the convictions are quashed and a retrial is ordered; the proviso...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] NZHC 2300
- Parties
- Appellant: Sharyn Margaret Jones; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 9 September 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / High Court Appeal Determined on the Papers
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; retrial ordered
- Legal Topics
- Theft by Person in a Special Relationship, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Miscarriage of Justice, Concession by Crown
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sharyn Margaret Jones
Appellant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / High Court Appeal Determined on the Papers
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether trial counsel's failure to take a brief of evidence or give detailed advice about whether the defendant should testify amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel and a miscarriage of justice
- 2 Whether the Crown concession was appropriate and whether the proviso to the conviction should apply
Ratio Decidendi
Because trial counsel failed to obtain a brief of evidence and failed to provide detailed advice about whether the appellant should testify, those omissions constituted counsel error causing a miscarriage of justice; accordingly the appeal is allowed, the convictions are quashed and a retrial is ordered; the proviso does not apply.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; retrial ordered
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The convictions are quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JONES v POLICE [2022] NZHC 2300 [9 September 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECRI-2022-404-000119[2022] NZHC 2300BETWEEN SHARYN MARGARET JONESAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: PB Borich KC for AppellantRD Butler and MA Beattie for RespondentJudgment: 9 September 2022JUDGMENT OF DOWNS JThis judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 9 September 2022 at 1 pm.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors/Counsel:Crown Solicitor, Manukau.PB Borich KC, Auckland.RD Butler, Auckland.MA Beattie, Auckland.[1] Sharyn Jones was convicted of four charges of theft by a person in a specialrelationship. She appeals conviction.[2] The respondent offers a concession the appeal should be allowed. Itacknowledges trial counsel did not take a brief (or statement) of evidence fromMs Jones or provide detailed advice as to whether Ms Jones should testify. Therespondent acknowledges the latter is a "fundamental" decision, in relation to whicha failure "will generally give rise to a miscarriage" of justice.1[3] The concession is responsible. Trial counsel acknowledges her failings. And,Ms Jones had no earlier experience of the criminal justice system. No question of theproviso arises. Ms Jones has suffered a miscarriage of justice through counsel error.Result[4] The appeal is allowed. The convictions are quashed. A re-trial is ordered...Downs J1 Hall v R [2015] NZCA 403, [2018] 2 NZLR 26 at [65].