IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
|
|
- Aleesha Chambers
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC 2009 BETWEEN AND HORACE TOHU Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 24 August 2015 Counsel: M English for the Appellant B Thompson for the Respondent Judgment: 24 August 2015 JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland Public Defence Service, Waitakere TOHU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 2009 [24 August 2015]
2 [1] In the District Court the appellant, Horace Tohu, pleaded guilty to a variety of driving offences, and offences of receiving, intentional damage and breach of parole. He was sentenced on 23 June 2015 by Judge Thomas to 12 months imprisonment for the driving offences and seven months imprisonment for the other offending. He was disqualified from driving for a total of 11 years. [2] The appellant now appeals solely against the length of disqualification imposed on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. The respondent accepts that this is the case and suggests that disqualification for a period of between six and eight years would be appropriate. Background [3] On 27 January 2015 a stolen motor vehicle was parked in the appellant s driveway. On 2 February 2015 the appellant drove the vehicle to Henderson. He parked it on the roadside and walked up a driveway, opened the door of a car parked in the driveway and removed an ipad tablet. The appellant drove away in the stolen vehicle. He was seen by police driving in a dangerous manner, but accelerated away from them when they pulled up behind him and approached the vehicle. Police pursued the appellant with red and blue flashing lights and siren. The defendant failed to stop and attempted to flee from police. He accelerated to well over 100 km per hour, overtaking cars and crossing on to the wrong side of the road. [4] The appellant drove into a car park in front of a shopping centre. He drove through the car park at speed, completing three circuits of the car parks before driving out of the car park the wrong way and then accelerating up the road. While doing so he temporarily crossed to the wrong side of the road. Then he accelerated to well over 100 km per hour, crossing a busy intersection through a red light. He again crossed on to the wrong side of the road, overtaking a number of cars at speed. He lost control at another intersection and crashed into the curb, ripping the front wheel off the car as it ground to a halt. The appellant ran from the scene before being detained by members of the public and police. [5] As a result of this behaviour, the appellant was charged with:
3 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle; Reckless driving; Failing to stop for red and blue flashing lights (third or subsequent); Failing to remain stopped for an enforcement officer; and Theft of an ipad [6] On 2 February 2015 the appellant appeared before the District Court on unrelated matters and was ordered to remain on electronically monitored bail. An electronic bail bracelet was placed on his ankle. At some time on 26 March, the appellant cut the bracelet off his ankle. [7] On the morning of 30 March, the appellant was driving a stolen motor vehicle. The vehicle was observed by a police helicopter. A police unit followed the vehicle along the road until the appellant was forced to stop due to heavy traffic at an intersection. Police ran to the vehicle and took the appellant into custody. In respect of this offending, the appellant was charged with: (a) (b) (c) Receiving; Intentional damage; and Breach of parole [8] The appellant pleaded guilty to these charges. Sentencing [9] On sentencing, the Judge adopted a starting point of three months imprisonment for failing to stop, three months imprisonment for reckless driving, and six months imprisonment for unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle. This last starting point was concurrent with three months imprisonment for theft of an ipad. This resulted in a starting point of 12 months imprisonment, which the Judge uplifted to 16 months to reflect the appellant s previous dishonesty offending. The Judge then noted that ordinarily he would adopt a starting point of 12 months imprisonment for the other set of offending. However, recognising the totality of the offending, he took a starting point of nine months imprisonment, resulting in a total
4 starting point of 25 months imprisonment. The Judge then stated that he would allow a 25 per cent discount for the early guilty plea. [10] Accordingly he arrived at a total sentence of 19 months imprisonment. This consisted of: (a) (b) (c) (d) Six months imprisonment for getting into a motor vehicle; and a concurrent sentence of three months imprisonment for theft of an ipad; A cumulative sentence of three months imprisonment for failing to stop, third and subsequent; A cumulative sentence of three months imprisonment for reckless driving; and A cumulative sentence of seven months imprisonment on receiving, concurrent with two months imprisonment for each of the charges of intentional damage and breach of parole. [11] The disqualifications imposed by the Judge are noted in two addendums to the judgment. He imposed a 10 year disqualification on the charge of reckless driving and a cumulative 12 months disqualification for failing to stop for red and blue flashing lights. The second addendum notes that the Judge came to the decision to disqualify the appellant for a total of 11 years based on his previous convictions which demonstrated that the appellant had driven dangerously, carelessly and recklessly on a number of occasions and had driven to evade police on multiple occasions. The Judge noted that the appellant had driven recklessly again in an attempt to get away from the police despite the number of previous convictions. Further, once the appellant had begun driving away from the police, there was instance after instance of genuinely life-threatening driving. The Judge considered that nothing would stop the appellant and it was a miracle that the appellant had crashed without killing anyone. The Judge considered that the appellant s record showed that if he had the chance to, the appellant would end up in a police pursuit again. He stated that the safety of the public was a concern, noting that the very lengthy period of disqualification was going to make life very difficult for the
5 appellant. However, he considered that this was the price the appellant had to pay; the safety of the public had to come first. Relevant Law [12] Under s 35(2)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1998, where a person is convicted of reckless driving the court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 6 months or more. Section 52(4) provides that where a person is convicted of failing to stop, third or subsequent, the court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 1 year. Section 52(5) provides that a disqualification ordered under sub-section (4) is cumulative on and not concurrent with any other disqualification that a court may order in respect of the incident that gave rise to the conviction. [13] Section 80 of the Land Transport Act compliments these two sections, providing an additional general power to disqualify a person from driving for such period as the court thinks fit if satisfied that the offence relates to road safety. Submissions Appellant s submissions [14] The appellant submits that the period of disqualification imposed is manifestly excessive as demonstrated by numerous decisions of both this Court and the Court of Appeal. The appellant argues that in other cases where the offender received a lengthy period of disqualification other aggravating factors were present in the offending such as driving under the influence of alcohol of drugs or driving without a licence. Further, the offending usually involves a more serious charge including causing death or injury. [15] Whilst the appellant accepts that he has a bad driving history, he submits that none of these factors were present in the offending. Additionally, the maximum sentence for the driving offending for which the appellant was convicted is three months imprisonment, indicating that the penalty should be relatively low. This is
6 also relevant to the practical effect of the disqualification: once the appellant has served his prison sentence there will be more than 10 years disqualification left. In this regard the appellant referred to s 94 of the Land Transport Act as evidencing recognition by Parliament that long periods of disqualification could be counterproductive and simply lead to further offending. [16] The appellant relies on three Court of Appeal decisions: (a) R v Grey: the appellant was sentenced to eight years six months imprisonment for manslaughter and disqualified from driving for 12 years. The Court substituted a period of eight years disqualification noting that an excessively long period of disqualification was not productive. 1 (b) Hitchens v R: the appellant was sentenced to three years six months imprisonment and disqualified for 10 years on one charge of excess breath alcohol causing death and two charges of causing injury. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reduced the disqualification to seven years. The appellant had consumed cannabis, was speeding, intoxicated and driving in breach of his learners licence. There were three passengers in the car, including one who had not been drinking and had been nominated the sober driver. The appellant had a lengthy list of previous driving offences: ten previous convictions for driving while disqualified, a conviction for dangerous driving, reckless driving, two convictions for driving with excess breath alcohol and four convictions for careless driving. 2 (c) Tai v R: the appellant was convicted of excess breath alcohol causing death and sentenced to two years nine months imprisonment and disqualified for 10 years. The appellant was drunk, driving in breach of her restricted licence, the car had no warrant of fitness, and the headlights were not on. She had no previous drink-driving 1 2 R v Grey (1992) 8 CRNZ 523 (CA). Hitchens v R CA380/03, 25 March 2004.
7 convictions. The disqualification was reduced to five years by the Court of Appeal, with the Crown accepting that it was manifestly excessive. 3 [17] The appellant also sets out numerous High Court decisions where periods of 10 years or more disqualification were reduced on appeal. The appellant notes that six High Court decisions were identified where periods of 10 years disqualification were imposed. The appellant cites three of these cases where a person was killed and the offender had been drinking. 4 In one other case a 77 year old driver was disqualified for 15 years for careless driving causing injury. The appellant notes that the penalty imposed in that case was otherwise lenient. 5 [18] Finally, the appellant attaches a table of 14 cases from the last 15 years where a lengthy period of disqualification was imposed. All of these cases, bar one, involved manslaughter or dangerous/drink driving causing death. The periods of disqualification imposed range from three years to seven years. Respondent s Submissions [19] The respondent accepts that the period of disqualification imposed was excessive and suggests that a period in the vicinity of six to eight years would be appropriate. [20] The respondent acknowledges that long periods of disqualification are not productive, as they leave little hope for offenders. 6 It submits, however, that the court must keep dangerous drivers off the road for as long as reasonably possible in appropriate cases. 7 Disqualification is primarily to protect the public and the period imposed should reflect that purpose, as well as the seriousness of the offending itself Tai v R [2010] NZCA 552. R v Tu HC Gisborne S3/2001, 21 February 2001; R v Hawthorn HC Wellington CRI , 28 May 2004; and Cashman v Police HC Christchurch CRI , 15 September Northcott v Police HC Hamilton AP131/92, 14 December R v Grey, above n 1, at 527; and Hitchens v R, above n 2, at [10]. Hitchens v R, above n 2, at [10]. Tai v R, above n 3, at [6] and [7].
8 [21] Furthermore, although any injury caused will be relevant, actual injury or death is not necessary for a lengthy period to be imposed. 9 [22] The respondent also points to several decisions not included in the appellant s submissions. Those decisions are: (a) R v Pairama: the offender was sentenced for a number of charges including manslaughter. He had 35 previous convictions including reckless driving. He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment and disqualified for 10 years, starting from when he was released from prison. 10 (b) R v Kumar: the offender was charged with two charges of manslaughter and two charges of causing bodily injury whole driving with excess blood alcohol. He had 13 previous traffic offences. He was sentenced to five years six months imprisonment and disqualified from driving for five years, starting from when he was released from prison. 11 (c) R v Herewini: the offender was sentenced for a number of charges including manslaughter. He had eleven previous driving related convictions. He was sentenced to seven and a half years imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of three years nine months. He was disqualified from driving for four years, starting from when he was released from prison. 12 [23] The respondent submits that the most similar case to the present is Smith v Police, where the appellant was sentenced on one charge of dangerous driving to community work and disqualified from driving for five years. The appellant had been involved in a prolonged police pursuit, had driven erratically and at high speed. He had a lengthy history of driving convictions, including five for dangerous King v Police HC Whangarei CRI , 2 October 2006 at [45]. R v Pairama HC Wanganui CRI , 31 May R v Kumar HC Gisborne CRI , 28 April R v Herewini HC Hamilton CRI , 14 May 2009.
9 driving. Miller J dismissed the appeal noting that the driving was extremely serious and that the speed, duration, attempts to avoid or escape the police and fact that it occurred during a police chase were serious aggravating factors. Miller J also noted that the offending had taken place on busy roads and it was only good luck that nobody was killed or injured. 13 [24] The respondent then turns to the factors of the current offending, noting that the appellant s first driving related conviction is from 1980, for dangerous driving. In total the appellant has 33 driving-related convictions including five dangerous driving convictions, a careless driving conviction, a reckless driving conviction, eight alcohol related driving convictions and 17 convictions for driving while disqualified or while licence suspended or revoked. The respondent states that this history shows an absolute disregard for the laws of the road, leaving no doubt that he represents a danger to other road users. [25] While the respondent accepts that the sentence of disqualification imposed was manifestly excessive, the respondent does not agree that the offending is significantly less serious than cases where terms in the region of four to six years disqualification have been imposed, as the appellant submits. The respondent accordingly submits that disqualification for a period of at least six years was justified. Analysis [26] The appeal is brought under s 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act Accordingly, the Court must allow the appeal if satisfied that, for any reason, there is an error in the sentence imposed, and a different sentence should be imposed. 14 This section was not intended to change the approach taken to sentence appeals under the now repealed s 385(3) of the Crimes Act 1961 and s 121(3) of the Summary Proceedings Act Accordingly, the appellant must demonstrate some error on the part of the sentencing court, in that the sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong Smith v Police HC Auckland CRI , 17 February Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2). Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [26].
10 in principle. 16 Although this section makes no reference to the concept of manifestly excessive, this concept is well-engrained and continues to be used in sentencing appeals. 17 [27] As the respondent has submitted, the primary purpose of disqualification is to protect the public, while reflecting the seriousness of the offending. 18 The court must strike a balance between two competing principles: first that long periods of disqualification typically leave little hope for offenders and may therefore be counterproductive as they may increase the risk that the offender may simply chose to drive; and secondly that the Court must keep the offender of the road for as long as reasonably possible. 19 The appropriate balancing of these principles depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. 20 [28] Both parties agree that the Judge was in error in imposing disqualification of 10 years, as, by reference to comparable cases, this was manifestly excessive. I agree. I am grateful to the respondent for making this responsible concession. [29] I also agree that the offending in this case is similar to that in Smith v Police where five years disqualification was imposed. As in Smith the relevant factors of the offending in this case are the police pursuit, speed, duration of the reckless driving, and that the appellant was attempting to avoid or escape the police. Also as in Smith, the offending occurred on busy roads. The District Court Judge clearly formed the view that the appellant was incredibly fortunate not to have killed or injured anybody. Further, as Miller J said in Smith, the appellant s previous driving related offences are relevant as they show a propensity to reoffend. 21 This clearly affects the appropriate length of disqualification necessary to protect the public. In Smith Miller J referred to five previous convictions for dangerous driving, a long list of convictions relating to vehicles and several convictions for driving while disqualified. The appellant s previous driving record in this case appears to be even worse, and the offences have been committed consistently over a 35 year period, R v Shipton [2007] 2 NZLR 218 (CA) at [138]. Tutakangahau v R, above n 17, at [35]. Tai v R, above n 3, at [6] and [7]. Hitchens v R, above n 2, at [10]. Leaupepe v Police [2015] NZHC 1766 at [10]. Smith v Police, above n 13, at [12].
11 although the last offending occurred in Finally, the appellant in this case faced the additional charge of failing to stop, third and subsequent. [30] While some of the common aggravating factors in similar cases, such as the use of alcohol or drugs and death or injury being caused, are not present in this case, the offending was very serious and clearly involved multiple aggravating factors. I consider it to be no more than a matter of luck that no-one was injured by the appellant s driving. [31] On the other hand, I consider that the offending in this case is less serious than Hitchens v R, a decision which has consistently been cited in appeals against disqualification from driving, where a seven year period of disqualification was adopted. The appellant in that case faced charges of driving with excess blood alcohol causing death and injuring. He had driven with three passengers in the car, including a sober driver, was drunk and had used cannabis. 22 That offender also had a number of serious driving-related offences, although not as many as the appellant in this case. [32] I note the appellant s submission regarding the policy behind s 94 of the Act and how by analogy it can be applied here. However I consider that Parliament intended the approach provided for in s 94 to be followed when an offender had done no more than committed a further offence of driving whilst disqualified. Here the appellant was legally qualified to drive. The long period of disqualification he faces is due to the gravity of his conduct whilst in control of a motor vehicle. I consider that any period of disqualification that I impose must align with how other Courts have approached analogous circumstances. It follows that whilst I consider the period of disqualification imposed in the District Court was too long and has led to a manifestly excessive sentence, I cannot impose the minimum period of disqualification for which the appellant contended. For the offence of reckless driving I consider a disqualification of five years is appropriate. For the offence of failing to stop I am required to impose a cumulative disqualification of 12 months. 23 It follows that the total period of disqualification is one of six years Hitchens v R, above n 2. See the description above at [15]. See s 52(4)(b) 52(5) of the Land Transport Act 1998.
12 Result [33] The appeal is allowed. The total disqualification of 11 years is set aside. In its place I impose the following disqualifications: - on the charge of reckless driving five years disqualification; - on the charge of failing to stop for red and blue flashing lights, third or subsequent one years disqualification cumulative on the five years disqualification. All disqualification to take effect from the date the appellant is released from prison.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY CRI [2016] NZHC CALEB MAX OʼCONNELL Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY CRI-2016-412-000014 [2016] NZHC 1692 BETWEEN AND CALEB MAX OʼCONNELL Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 25 July 2016 Appearances: C C Lynch
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI GEORGE MICHAEL SUNNEX Appellant. POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2010-409-000043 GEORGE MICHAEL SUNNEX Appellant v POLICE Respondent Hearing: 22 April 2010 Appearances: A Bailey for Appellant K Basire for Respondent
More informationAppellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent. Miller, Cooper and Winkelmann JJ. A Shaw for Appellant A M Powell and E J Devine for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA600/2015 [2016] NZCA 420 BETWEEN AND DINH TU DO Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 24 August 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Miller, Cooper and Winkelmann
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC GARTH ERICH LECHNER Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2013-485-22 [2013] NZHC 1166 GARTH ERICH LECHNER Appellant v NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 21 May 2013 Counsel: D Ewen for Appellant S
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CRI [2016] NZHC 162. DAVID KEITH SILBY Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CRI-2015-488-000048 [2016] NZHC 162 BETWEEN AND DAVID KEITH SILBY Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: Appearances: 11 February 2016 (By
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA82/2014 [2014] NZCA 304 BETWEEN AND TOESE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC Appellant. CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2013-409-000006 [2013] NZHC 2388 BETWEEN AND CIRCLE K LIMITED Appellant CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: 11 September 2013 Appearances:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND THE QUEEN PETER CHARLES HALLMOND. Fisher J Potter J. W N Dollimore for appellant K Raftery for Crown
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA42/01 THE QUEEN V PETER CHARLES HALLMOND Hearing: 21 June 2001 Coram: Appearances: Blanchard J Fisher J Potter J W N Dollimore for appellant K Raftery for Crown
More informationDECISION AND REASONS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/17105/2012 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 21 April 2015 On 10 June 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA305/2008 [2008] NZCA 415 THE QUEEN ALISTAIR MARK STUART LYON. Robertson, Cooper and Winkelmann JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA305/2008 [2008] NZCA 415 THE QUEEN v ALISTAIR MARK STUART LYON Hearing: 20 August 2008 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Robertson, Cooper and Winkelmann JJ Appellant in
More informationCARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. J U Mooney for Appellant JEL Carruthers for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA297/2017 [2017] NZCA 535 BETWEEN AND CARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 15 November 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Lang and
More informationDAVID STANLEY TRANTER Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985 AND S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE
More informationSchedule 1. Calculation of Grid Premiums
Schedule 1 Calculation of Grid Premiums Definitions 1(1) In this Schedule, (a) at-fault claim means, in respect of liability described in section 627 of the Act or under the same or equivalent coverage
More informationTaxi licensing Roy Light, St John s Chambers 10 December 2013
Taxi licensing Roy Light, St John s Chambers roy.light@stjohnschambers.co.uk 10 December 2013 Utilitarianism Recent cases R (application of Singh) v Cardiff City Council [2012] EWCH 1852 (Admin) taxi drivers
More informationTHE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS Respondents
NOTE: ORDER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND OF THE HIGH COURT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT'S
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI [2017] NZDC NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor. NATHAN PETER CALDER Defendant
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI-2016-004-011072 [2017] NZDC 4653 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor v NATHAN PETER CALDER Defendant Hearing: 3 March 2017 Appearances:
More informationRespondent. Counsel: Paul Heaslip for the Appellant Sarah Mandeno for the Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY A193/00 BETWEEN R LYON Appellant AND THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Date of hearin g : 14 November 2000 Counsel: Paul Heaslip for the Appellant Sarah
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-02-00688-CR Sammie Meredith, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2020286,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY AP 290/02 BETWEEN PAUL KHAN WHATUIRA A N D NEW ZEALAND POLICE ORAL JUDGMENT OF HAMMOND J
cs6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY AP 290/02 BETWEEN PAUL KHAN WHATUIRA Appellant A N D NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 10 December 2002 Counsel: C Nicholls for Appellant M
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before. Upper Tribunal Judge Gleeson Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Rimington. (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/00112/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 7 th December 2015 On 7 th January 2016 Before Upper
More informationA M Clayton (Member) Counsel for the Appellant: Date of Decision: 17 May 2017 RESIDENCE DECISION
IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZIPT 203860 AT AUCKLAND Appellant: YV (Skilled Migrant) Before: A M Clayton (Member) Counsel for the Appellant: A S Martin Date of Decision: 17 May
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV [2016] NZDC HARI AROHA RAPATA Appellant
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV-2014-059-000133 [2016] NZDC 3321 BETWEEN AND HARI AROHA RAPATA Appellant NEW ZEALAND LAND TRANSPORT AGENCY Respondent Hearing:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC ANTHONY RAHIRI MARSH Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2013-409-000048 [2013] NZHC 2234 BETWEEN AND ANTHONY RAHIRI MARSH Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 28 August 2013 Appearances:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.7 OF 2003 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: EGBERT HANLEY and THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Appellant Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr. Adrian Saunders
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) DA/00257/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) DA/00257/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 24 th November 2015 On 11 th December 2015 Before Upper Tribunal
More informationWhat happens if you have been involved in a road traffic collision?
What happens if you have been involved in a road traffic collision? We always complete a collision report if there are possible offences which will require investigation. In cases of non-injury collisions,
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CRAIG PROFESSOR N M HILL QC DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL. Between
IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/01503/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Oral determination given following hearing on 7 July 2015 Decision &
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
County Criminal Court: CRIMINAL LAW Evidence Since the trial court applied the incorrect standard in its order dismissing Appellee s charge for the officer s failure to videotape the DUI investigation,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 196/97
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 196/97 THE QUEEN v IAN CHARLES PHIPPS Coram: Hearing: Counsel: Gault J Anderson J Robertson J 19 August 1997 (at Auckland) R. Asher QC and J.H. Wiles for Appellant
More informationUnderstanding Your Safety Responsibilities
Understanding Your Safety Responsibilities Cameron Dean Partner McCullough Robertson Lawyers Background The enforcement of safety and health obligations in the Queensland mining industry by way of prosecutions
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v M [2003] QCA 380 PARTIES: R v M (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 92 of 2003 DC No 334 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal
More informationPUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA563/2008 [2009] NZCA 145 THE QUEEN v WAYNE ALEXANDER
More informationDISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Giles Barham Heard on: 11 March 2015 Location: ACCA Offices, 29 Lincoln s Inn Fields,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 18, 2008 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 18, 2008 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTHONY K. SMITH Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. CR021638-A Timothy Easter,
More informationPUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA423/2008 [2008] NZCA 461 THE QUEEN v ZEPPELIN RONNY
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI [2016] NZDC THE QUEEN BIANCA ANASTASIAH COMINS. M Meyrick for the Defendant
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI-2014-004-008531 [2016] NZDC 11214 THE QUEEN v BIANCA ANASTASIAH COMINS Hearing: 17 June 2016 Appearances: B Northwood for the
More informationAlexander Blackman. In the Court Martial Appeal Court. Judgment. 21 st December 2016
JU Alexander Blackman In the Court Martial Appeal Court Judgment 21 st December 2016 Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd CJ and Sweeney J : 1. The court has before it this afternoon three applications. First an application
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CRAIG. Between MR ABDUL KADIR SAID. and. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent
IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/00950/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Courts of Justice Oral determination given immediately following the hearing
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Winkelmann, Peters and Collins JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA508/2015 [2016] NZCA 138 BETWEEN AND MRINAL SARDANA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 8 March 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Winkelmann, Peters and Collins
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEKIĆ. Between GLEZIER PALMER-LUIS (ANONYMITY ORDER NOT MADE) and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/00604/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 20 July 2017 On 25 July 2017 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A112490
Filed 8/21/06 P. v. Hall CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. L Trial Court No. CR
[Cite as State v. Sisson, 2002-Ohio-7111.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio Appellee Court of Appeals No. L-01-1499 Trial Court No. CR-01-2279 v. Jacob
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 24, 2007
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 24, 2007 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. EDWARD BUCK FRANKLIN Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bedford County No. 15,981 15,986
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 385/97 THE QUEEN
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 385/97 THE QUEEN v CLIFFORD ANDREW RODGER CoramEichelbaum CJ Tipping J Goddard J Hearing 30 April 1998 Counsel H Croft for Appellant S P France for Crown Judgment
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 22, 2005
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 22, 2005 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. EARL D. MILLS - July 5, 2005 Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No.78215
More informationHEARING PARTLY HEARD IN PRIVATE
HEARING PARTLY HEARD The Committee has made a determination in this case that includes some private information. That information has been omitted from this text. GARNETT, Dean Andrew Registration No:
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT NOT REPORTABLE Case No: 100/13 In the matter between: GEOFFREY MARK STEYN Appellant and THE STATE Respondent Neutral citation: Geoffrey Mark Steyn v
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. Vincent Olebogang Magano and
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case no: 849/12 Not reportable Vincent Olebogang Magano and The State Appellant Respondent Neutral citation: Magano v S (849/12)[2013]
More informationNo CR. JOSE RAUL REYNA, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee APPELLANT S BRIEF
Oral argument requested. No. 05 09 00261 CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS JOSE RAUL REYNA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI JEREMY MICHAEL GRAVES Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI-2010-463-57 JEREMY MICHAEL GRAVES Appellant v NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 14 December 2010 Appearances: Mr N J B Taylor for appellant Ms
More informationH.C.Cr. Appeal No. 621 of 2001) ****************************** JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: OMOLO, GITHINJI & DEVERELL, JJ.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2004 BETWEEN ALBANUS MWASIA MUTUA APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC... RESPONDENT (Appeal
More informationREPORTABLE. Case no: A 1077/96 245/97 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA. In the matter between : and. Olivier, Scott and Stretcher JJA
REPORTABLE Case no: A 1077/96 245/97 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between : VICTOR KIBIDO Appellant and THE STATE Respondent Coram : Olivier, Scott and Stretcher JJA Date
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COKER. Between SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT. And SELIM MACASTENA
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 19 th January 2016 On 20 th January 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COKER
More informationLakshmi Bhargavi Koppula. Na (Fiona) Zhou
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2015] NZIACDT 85 Reference No: IACDT 023/12 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationDISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO. PANEL: Michael Hogard, RPN Chairperson April Cheese, RPN Member Dennis Curry, RN Member
DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO PANEL: Michael Hogard, RPN Chairperson April Cheese, RPN Member Dennis Curry, RN Member Joan King Public Member Margaret Tuomi Public Member BETWEEN:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST DIVISION,
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The application for an extension of time within which to appeal is granted.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA542/2016 [2017] NZCA 212 BETWEEN AND JOHN SIONA MOALA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 10 May 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Gilbert and Katz JJ
More informationDISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Lee Martin Holberton Heard on: Wednesday, 13 April 2016 Location: ACCA Offices, The
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 21, 2004 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 21, 2004 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MICHAEL A. DRAKE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Wilson County No. 98-0898 & 98-0900 John
More informationBENZILE McDONALD ZWANE B A I L A P P E A L J U D G M E N T. 1]The appellant applied for bail before the Magistrate, Port Elizabeth and his
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: Case No.: CA&R08/2011 Date heard: 12 May 2011 Date delivered: 17 May 2011 BENZILE McDONALD ZWANE Appellant and THE
More informationJOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA361/2016 [2017] NZCA 69 BETWEEN AND JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: Court: Counsel: Judgment: 15 February 2017 (with an application
More informationm~frc[i 01' 'rhe CHH!F JOS'l1CE REJ>lJI.IUC ()f SOUTH AF.fd(:A In the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division, Cape Town}
m~frc[i 01' 'rhe CHH!F JOS'l1CE REJ>lJI.IUC ()f SOUTH AF.fd(:A In the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division, Cape Town} CASE NO: A200/17 In the matter between: HEADMAN NOGQALA APPELLANT and
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMIL DABNEY Appellant No. 1447 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 5 January 2016 On 19 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HUTCHINSON. Between BN (ANONYMITY ORDER)
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06347/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 5 January 2016 On 19 January 2016 Before DEPUTY
More informationThe Court of Appeal for Bermuda
Between: The Court of Appeal for Bermuda CRIMINAL APPEAL No 9 of 2015 JOESHUN RUSSELL -v- THE QUEEN Appellant Respondent Before: Baker, President Bell, JA Kawaley, AJA Appearances: Ms. Aura-Lee Cassidy,
More informationMy legal expenses cover...
My legal expenses cover... Motor Legal Expenses Welcome Thank you for insuring with 1 ST CENTRAL. We are delighted to welcome you as a valued customer. Please take time to read your policy document and
More informationHEARING in the Specialist Courts and Tribunals Centre at Auckland
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2014] NZLCDT 37 LCDT 007/13 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE No. 3 Applicant AND ANTHONY
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 17, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 17, 2005 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAMES T. BRACKINS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County No. CR9578-II Richard R. Vance, Judge
More informationRACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL
RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL DATE OF HEARING: 25 July 2018 RAT 11/2018 TRIBUNAL: DEPUTY PRESIDENT: MR M KING ASSESSOR IN ATTENDANCE: APPELLANT: MR J STALLARD MR S EWEN, STEWARD, HARNESS RACING SA LTD MR RYAN
More informationIs your acceptance of the terms set out below and on the form; and
TERMS & CONDITIONS Please read these terms and conditions carefully and if there is anything you do not understand, please ask any member of staff. It is important that you fully understand and accept
More informationHEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC
HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC RAMSAY, Laura Jo Registration No: 175661 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 2017 Outcome: Erased with immediate suspension Laura Jo RAMSAY, a dental nurse, Qual- National
More informationNEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2017] NZLCDT 5 LCDT 015/16. of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2017] NZLCDT 5 LCDT 015/16 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN STANDARDS COMMITTEE 3 OF THE CANTERBURY/WESTLAND BRANCH
More informationBoniface Juma Khisa v Republic [2011] eklr IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT ELDORET CORAM: OMOLO, WAKI & VISRAM, JJ.A CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT ELDORET CORAM: OMOLO, WAKI & VISRAM, JJ.A CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2009 BETWEEN BONIFACE JUMA KHISA.. APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC. RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High
More informationMotorhome legal expenses policy
Motorhome legal expenses policy Helplines Motor legal expenses provides: 24/7 legal advice Insurance for legal costs for certain types of disputes Helpline services Legal helpline You can use the helpline
More informationSENTENCE (subject to editorial corrections)
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Crim 325 Case No: 2016/05551/B1 & 2016/05552/B1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION) ON A REFERENCE FROM THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION ON APPEAL FROM A
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BUDGET RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 1, 2007 V No. 271703 Wayne Circuit Court CITY OF DETROIT, and DETROIT POLICE LC No. 05-501303-NI
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.324 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.324 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5655 of 2018) Nagaraj.Appellant(s) VERSUS Union of India.Respondent(s)
More information[Cite as State v. Trivett, 2002-Ohio-6391.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY
[Cite as State v. Trivett, 2002-Ohio-6391.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2001-12-095 : O P I N I O N - vs
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent JUDGMENT OF BREWER J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI-2013-470-18 [2013] NZHC 2758 BETWEEN AND TAHAKURA KAMAKORE RAWHERA AWHIOWHIO KOHU Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 16 October 2013
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 165/99 THE QUEEN HARRY MICHAEL JAMES MURPHY. 28 July 1999 (at Auckland) Anderson J Robertson J
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 165/99 THE QUEEN V HARRY MICHAEL JAMES MURPHY Hearing: Coram: Appearances: 28 July 1999 (at Auckland) Henry J Anderson J Robertson J B R Northwood for Appellant
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. N M Dutch for Appellant I R Murray and R K Thomson for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] In the Court a quo the appellant was refused bail by the Port Elizabeth
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH Case no: CA&R15/2016 Date heard: 25 th January 2017 Date delivered: 2 nd February 2017 In the matter between: LUTHANDO MFINI
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI [2017] NZDC FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY Prosecutor. ANTHONY NORMAN WILSON Defendant
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI-2016-004-012938 [2017] NZDC 18611 FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY Prosecutor v ANTHONY NORMAN WILSON Defendant Hearing: 12 July 2017 Appearances: O Klaassen for the Prosecutor
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Fisher v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) [2011] QCA 54 PARTIES: JASON IAN FISHER (appellant) v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (QUEENSLAND) (respondent) FILE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v MCE [2015] QCA 4 PARTIES: R v MCE (appellant) FILE NO: CA No 186 of 2014 DC No 198 of 2012 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against
More informationLR (Roma-Remedies-Police Brutality) Romania CG [2002] UKIAT. Appeal No. CC IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Heard at FIELD HOUSE On 10th July 2002 BETWEEN: IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Before: Mr. D. J. Parkes (Chairman) Mrs. E. Hurst J.P. Mr. A. Smith MRS. LINA ROSTAS - and - THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME
More informationNo. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Steven B. Whittington, Judge. September 14, 2018
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-4699 THEOPHILUS BESSELLIEU, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Steven B. Whittington,
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. Case no: A119/12
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In a matter between: Case no: A119/12 FANA BEN MSIMANGA APPELLANT And THE STATE RESPONDENT CORAM: C.J. MUSI, J et DA ROCHA-BOLTNEY, AJ JUDGMENT
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: MAY 5, 2017; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2016-CA-000393-MR ANTONIO ELLISON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE CHARLES
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 5 OF 2014
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 5 OF 2014 MAY BUSH Appellant v THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE The Hon Mr Justice Sir Manuel Sosa The Hon Mr Justice Samuel Awich The Hon Mr Justice
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KOPIECZEK. Between. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/01787/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Courts of Justice Determination Promulgated On 7 July 2014 On 15 th Aug 2014 Judgment given
More informationOLO and Others (para foreign criminal ) [2016] UKUT (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) OLO and Others (para 398 - foreign criminal ) [2016] UKUT 00056 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 23 November
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TERRELL DARNELL SMITH Appellant No. 1207 MDA 2014 Appeal from
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH CRI [2016] NZDC WORKSAFE Prosecutor
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH CRI-2015-009-002051 [2016] NZDC 15032 WORKSAFE Prosecutor v LYTTELTON PORT COMPANY LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 5 August 2016
More informationSummary: Intervention & Options
Summary: Intervention & Options Department /Agency: Department for Transport Title: Impact Assessment of Measures to Increase Driver Compliance - Careless Driving Stage: Consultation Version: 1 Date: October
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC 210. MATTHEW JOHN BLOMFIELD Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2013-404-005218 [2016] NZHC 210 BETWEEN AND MATTHEW JOHN BLOMFIELD Plaintiff CAMERON JOHN SLATER Defendant Hearing: 16 February 2016 Counsel: BG Beresford
More informationDemystifying Legal Expense Insurance
Demystifying Legal Expense Insurance January 2014 2 Speakers: Diane Bélanger, LL. B., FBA Solutions President FBA Solutions president and co-founder since 1998, member of Barreau du Québec since 1989,
More informationHEARING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OFCHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OFCHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Mebrahtom Kidanemariam Melese Heard on: Thursday, 1 March 2018 Location: ACCA Offices,
More informationFor the appellant : Mrs. K. Simfukwe, Legal Aid Counsel Legal Aid Board
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA SCZ/APPEAL 162/2011 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Criminal Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: PATRICK HARA APPELLANT AND THE PEOPLE RESPONDENT CORAM: PHIRI, WANKI, JJS AND LENGALENGA, Ag JS On 9
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 2188 PETER JAMES BASSETT NEW ZEALAND POLICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY CRI-2014-454-000006 [2014] NZHC 2188 PETER JAMES BASSETT v Hearing: 30 July 2014 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Counsel: P S Coles for Appellant D R Davies
More information