20 DECEMBER NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE 4379

(d) an undated and unsigned note stated by the applicant to be a notebook entry made by Detective Sergeant M. C. Weir on 23 June 1994:

(e) a report compiled by Brian Donovan, Audio Visual Centre/Photographic Section, The University of Auckland, dated 20 November 1996:

(f) the affidavit of Gordon Frank Sanderson, optometrist, dated 8 May 1997:

(g) a report compiled by Peter J. Durrant, scientific photographer, dated February 1998.

Question 3:

Were the applicant’s positive fingerprint marks, made in blood, that were found on the rifle used to commit the murders, put there at some time before the murders or, at the very least, is there a reasonable possibility that this could have been so?

The following documents are or may be relevant to this question:

(a) case notes from P. R. Hentschel, Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited:

(b) case notes from Dr P. Cropp, Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited:

(c) a table labelled “Test I: Quantitation and Amplification Record” from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited, dated 7 August 1997:

(d) a table labelled “Test II: Quantitation and Amplification Record” from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited, dated 19 August 1997:

(e) a diagram prepared by Dr Sally Ann Harbison, Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited, dated 3 September 1997:

(f) a letter (and attached table) from Dr Sally Ann Harbison, Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited, dated 5 March 1998:

(g) a report compiled by Dr John Maxwell Robertson, General Manager, Accreditation Services, International Accreditation New Zealand, dated 2 April 1998:

(h) a report compiled by Dr Arie Geursen, Director of Resources, Genesis Research and Development Corporation Limited, dated 12 June 1998:

(i) a letter from Dr Arie Geursen, Director of Resources, Genesis Research and Development Corporation Limited, dated 25 March 1999:

(j) a letter from Kim Jones, Senior Fingerprint Officer, Crime Print Section, Christchurch Police, dated 28 April 2000.

Question 4:

Was the submission made by the Crown Solicitor in the Crown’s closing address to the jury at the applicant’s trial that “Only one person could have heard Laniet gurgling. That person is the murderer” wrong or misleading?

The following documents are or may be relevant to this question:

(a) page 101 of the summary of the briefs of evidence for the applicant’s trial prepared by defence counsel, Michael Guise, containing the applicant’s handwritten notations:

(b) a report compiled by Dr K. J. Thomson, forensic pathologist, dated 21 August 1997:

(c) a supplementary report and opinion compiled by Professor Stephen M. Cordner, Professor of Forensic Medicine, Monash University, dated 9 February 1998:

(d) a report compiled by Dr James Gwynne, retired anatomical and forensic pathologist, dated 23 July 1998:

(e) the affidavit of Ray Pritchard, retired laboratory technician, dated 12 November 1998.

Question 5:

Does the Court of Appeal’s opinion on questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 (whether taken individually or collectively) indicate that there is credible and cogent evidence available that might, if it had been placed before the jury, along with the other evidence given at the applicant’s trial, have reasonably led the jury to return a different verdict?

Question 6:

Having regard to the Court of Appeal’s opinion on question 5, is there a possibility that there has been a miscarriage of justice that would warrant the question of the applicant’s convictions being referred to the Court of Appeal under section 406 (a) of the Crimes Act 1961?

MARIE SHROFF, Clerk of the Executive Council.

g09384

New Zealand Customs Service

Customs and Excise Act 1996

Customs (Applications for Customs Rulings) Amendment Rules 2000

Pursuant to section 288 (1) (h) and (12) of the Customs and Excise Act 1996, the Chief Executive hereby makes the rules prescribing the forms for the making of applications for customs rulings and amends the Customs (Applications for Customs Rulings) Rules 1997.

1. Title and commencement—(1) These rules are the Customs (Applications for Customs Rulings) Amendment Rules 2000.

(2) In these rules, the Customs (Applications for Customs Rulings) 1997* are called “the principal rules”.

(3) These rules come into force on the 28th day after the date of their publication in the New Zealand Gazette.

*CR 11/1997

2. Schedule amended—(1) The Schedule of the principal rules is amended by revoking form C7A and form C7B and substituting form C7A and form C7B set out in the Schedule of these rules.

(2) Except to the extent amended by subrule (1) the principal rules shall remain in force.

Schedule