86:
198:
unreasonable verdict would out of necessity also include a verdict that was unsupportable, from the start the legislation had maintained this tautologous distinction. Courts had followed the letter of the law in maintaining the grounds as distinct, albeit with some overlap. The
Supreme Court found that it was time to cease the support of the distinction and that henceforth the touchstone for an appeal under this section would be unreasonableness.
25:
201:
The court accepted the Court of Appeal's definition of unreasonableness in R v Munroe; "A verdict will be deemed unreasonable where it is a verdict that, having regard to all the evidence, no jury could reasonably have reached to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt", with the minor alteration of
197:
The distinction between the grounds was based on the historic difference between an appeal based on fact (here unreasonability) and one based on law (unsupported). The former had not been permissible until the legislative ancestor to the Crimes Act gave that right. Although conceptually an
202:
expunging the word "deemed" as it indicated that a court might find a verdict unreasonable when it was not in fact. Applying this standard to the facts of Mr Owen's case the court found that the verdict which the jury had come to was in light of the evidence not unreasonable.
181:
The appellant who had been convicted of sexual violation, appealed to the Court of Appeal who found against him. Mr Owen then appealed to the
Supreme Court on the basis that the Court of Appeal had blurred the lines between two distinct grounds for appeal in the section.
43:
178:
or the
Supreme Court where "That the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence".
257:
61:
252:
128:
96:
262:
159:
190:
Leave was given by the court chiefly as passages in the Court of Appeal's judgment indicated that a
114:
85:
175:
151:
136:
155:
246:
163:
166:
JJ. The judgment was unanimous and united. Tipping J read the court's decision.
147:
194:
could only be unreasonable where it could not be supported on the evidence.
191:
132:
115:
http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZSC/2007/102.html
131:
handed down on 11 December 2007. It concerned the grounds for
18:
39:
110:
102:
92:
78:
34:
may be too technical for most readers to understand
174:The Crimes Act gave a right to appeal to the
8:
84:
75:
62:Learn how and when to remove this message
46:, without removing the technical details.
106:NZSC 102; 2 NZLR 37; (2007) 23 CRNZ 710
211:
44:make it understandable to non-experts
7:
258:Supreme Court of New Zealand cases
16:New Zealand Supreme Court judgment
14:
23:
127:NZSC 102 is a decision of the
1:
135:in section 385(1)(a) of the
129:Supreme Court of New Zealand
97:Supreme Court of New Zealand
279:
124:Kurt John Owen v The Queen
83:
143:Composition of the Court
253:2007 in New Zealand law
227:NZCA 510, Glazewell J.
120:
119:
72:
71:
64:
270:
263:2007 in case law
237:
234:
228:
225:
219:
216:
88:
76:
67:
60:
56:
53:
47:
27:
26:
19:
278:
277:
273:
272:
271:
269:
268:
267:
243:
242:
241:
240:
235:
231:
226:
222:
217:
213:
208:
188:
176:Court of Appeal
172:
145:
137:Crimes Act 1961
68:
57:
51:
48:
40:help improve it
37:
28:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
276:
274:
266:
265:
260:
255:
245:
244:
239:
238:
229:
220:
210:
209:
207:
204:
187:
184:
171:
168:
144:
141:
118:
117:
112:
108:
107:
104:
100:
99:
94:
90:
89:
81:
80:
70:
69:
31:
29:
22:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
275:
264:
261:
259:
256:
254:
251:
250:
248:
236:Owen para. 15
233:
230:
224:
221:
218:Owen para. 12
215:
212:
205:
203:
199:
195:
193:
185:
183:
179:
177:
169:
167:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
142:
140:
138:
134:
130:
126:
125:
116:
113:
109:
105:
101:
98:
95:
91:
87:
82:
77:
74:
66:
63:
55:
45:
41:
35:
32:This article
30:
21:
20:
232:
223:
214:
200:
196:
189:
180:
173:
146:
123:
122:
121:
73:
58:
52:January 2023
49:
33:
170:Legislation
247:Categories
111:Transcript
152:Blanchard
79:Owens v R
186:Decision
164:Anderson
103:Citation
192:verdict
160:McGrath
156:Tipping
38:Please
133:appeal
206:Notes
148:Elias
93:Court
162:and
150:CJ,
42:to
249::
158:,
154:,
139:.
65:)
59:(
54:)
50:(
36:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
