1844

NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 76

Justice

Crimes Act 1961

Reference to the Court of Appeal of the Question of the Conviction of Rex Haig for Murder

Administrator of the Government

ORDER IN COUNCIL

At Wellington this 21st day of June 2004

Present:

MINISTER OF JUSTICE IN COUNCIL

Pursuant to section 406 (a) of the Crimes Act 1961,
Dame Sian Elias, Administrator of the Government:

(a) acting on the advice and with the consent of the Executive Council; and

(b) in the light of the background, and for the reason, stated in the Schedule,

refers to the Court of Appeal the question of the conviction of Rex Haig for murder entered in the High Court at Invercargill on 9 November 1995.

Schedule

Background

1. Convictions and appeal—(1) On 9 November 1995, Rex Haig (the applicant) was convicted in the High Court at Invercargill of the murder of Mark Thomas Roderique.

(2) On 24 July 1996, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant against his conviction.

2. Application for exercise of mercy—(1) On 22 September 1999, the applicant made an application:

(a) for the exercise of the mercy of the Crown in respect of the conviction referred to in clause 1; and

(b) in particular, for the exercise of the power of the Governor-General in Council under section 406 (a) of the Crimes Act 1961 to refer the question of the conviction to the Court of Appeal (the power of reference).

(2) The grounds advanced in the application included:

(a) that:

(i) there was evidence relating to the case, not available at the trial of the applicant, to the effect that David Neil Hogan made to a number of people (both before and after the trial) statements admitting involvement in the death of Mark Thomas Roderique; and

(ii) David Neil Hogan gave evidence for the Crown at the trial, and had been granted immunity from prosecution before doing so; and

(iii) the statements referred to in subparagraph (i) were inconsistent with evidence David Neil Hogan gave at the trial; and

(b) that:

(i) Bryan Rowe had undertaken an investigation involving re-examining evidence given at the trial and examining matters arising in the statements referred to in paragraph (a) (i); and

(ii) the results of the investigation suggested that there was a real risk that the conviction was a miscarriage of justice.

(3) On or about 16 February 2001, the application was declined on the advice of the Minister of Justice.

(4) The Minister of Justice gave that advice after considering the advice of the Secretary for Justice that the material advanced in support of the application did not warrant recommending the exercise of the power of reference.

(5) Before the advice of the Secretary for Justice was given to the Minister of Justice, there was obtained from a Queen’s Counsel an opinion to the effect that he agreed with the analysis and conclusions in it.

(6) On 30 November 2001, the applicant re-submitted the application on the grounds that:

(a) the Ministry of Justice had not properly considered it; and

(b) the advice of the Secretary for Justice to the Minister of Justice had been inadequate.

(7) The Minister of Justice sought an opinion from another Queen’s Counsel on the re-submitted application.

(8) The other Queen’s Counsel:

(a) applied to the question of whether the material advanced in support of the application warranted recommending the exercise of the power of reference a test differing from that applied by the Secretary for Justice and the Queen’s Counsel who earlier considered the advice of the Secretary for Justice; and

(b) concluded that those of the grounds advanced in the application for the exercise of that power that are referred to in clause 2 (2) warranted recommending the exercise of that power.

3. Evidence not available at trial—The evidence referred to in clause 2 (2) (a) (i) is set out in the following affidavits:

(a) The affidavit of Frederick Robert Angell dated 1 July 1999;

(b) the affidavit of John Anthony Bakker dated 14 June 1999;

(c) the affidavit of Justin Tait Brown dated 21 July 1999;

(d) the affidavit of Mark David Downing dated 14 June 1999;

(e) the affidavit of Jacqueline Anne Galland dated 14 June 1999;

(f) the affidavit of Gary Murdoch Hopkins dated 11 June 1999;

(g) the affidavit of Geoffrey Haig Jones dated 2 August 1999;

(h) the affidavit of Steven John Keefe dated 1 July 1999;

(i) the affidavit of Shaun Patrick Kelly dated 12 June 1999;

(j) the affidavit of Melanie Sarah Hawea Rei dated 6 July 1999;

(k) the affidavit of Kylie Jane Reidie dated 11 June 1999;

(l) the affidavit of Karen Anne Richardson dated 15 June 1999;

(m) the affidavit of Ivan Brett Sklenars dated 1 July 1999;

(n) the affidavit of Marcus George Wallington dated 21 July 1999.

Reason for Reference

4. Reason—The question of the applicant’s conviction is referred to the Court of Appeal so that it may:

(a) consider the evidence referred to in clause 2 (2) (a) (i); and

(b) consider whether any of the evidence given at the applicant’s trial should be reconsidered:

(i) in the light of the evidence referred to in clause 2 (2) (a) (i); or

(ii) for any other reason; and