ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY
CRI-2011-042-000869
CRI-2011-042-000876 [2015] NZHC 679

THE QUEEN

v

TAYLOR IVAN ANTONIEVIC THOMAS JOSEPH BASHFORD NATALIE JEAN BUSCH
COLIN CHINNOCK JORDAN JOHN DALY
JASON PETER GEORGE FRIEND JASON PAUL GRIFFITHS GRANT ROY HAYWARD TERRY JONES
HAYLEY JOANNE KIRKWOOD MARK JAMES LEE
RUSSELL PHILLIP LLOYD JOSEPH MARK PAHL GREGORY JOHN PAGE ROGER PAUL PATRICK GLYN PATRICK RUTLEDGE CRAIG PETER SMITH
DAMIAN JOHN STACEY ROBERT JOHN STEWART GLEN ROSS THOMPSON

Hearing:	2 April 2015

Counsel:	J M Webber for Crown
S W Rollo for Defendants Bashford, Chinnock, Daly, Friend, Griffiths, Kirkwood, Lee, Pahl, Patrick, Stacey and Thompson A J D Bamford for Defendants Lloyd, Jones and Page
S J Zindel and S M Barclay for Defendants Antonievic and
Smith
J C S Sandston for Defendant Rutledge
C P Stevenson and T H A Spear for Defendant Hayward

R v ANTONIEVIC [2015] NZHC 679 [2 April 2015]

Judgment:	2 April 2015	

Reasons:	
13 April 2015	

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J
[Unopposed applications made under s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961]

[1]      This judgment very briefly explains why on 2 April 2015 I granted 116 applications pursuant to s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961.  The Crown did not oppose the applications which I granted.

[2]       The s 347 applications were the natural consequence of my judgments of

20 February  20151   and  11  March  20152.    Those  judgments  should  be  read  in conjunction with this decision.

[3]       The Crown properly recognised that the effect of my earlier judgments was that there would be insufficient evidence to prosecute a number of the charges that were pending.   For that reason the Crown did not oppose the s 347 applications which I granted on 2 April 2015.

[4]       From my knowledge of the case, I am very satisfied that no properly directed jury could properly convict the defendants of the charges which were the subject of the s 347 applications.3   I accordingly granted the applications.

[5]       The only complicating issue concerned Mr Thompson and count 90 in the first indictment.   The  Crown, Mr Thompson’s  counsel and court staff all agree Mr Thompson entered a guilty plea but was not convicted of count 90.   In these unusual circumstances I granted Mr Thompson’s application to vacate his guilty plea and discharged him under s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961 in relation to that charge.
Again, the Crown did not oppose this course of action.

1	R v Antonievic [2015] NZHC 230.
2	R v Antonievic (No 2) [2015] NZHC 439.
3	R v Flyger [2001] 2 NZLR 721 (CA) and Parris v Attorney-General [2004] 1 NZLR 519 (CA).

[6]	The charges in respect of which the s 347 applications were granted are set out in the following schedule:

Trial One Indictment

(a)	Bashford – counts 1, 2, 3, 11, 34, 35, 70 and 78. (b)	Chinnock – counts 1 and 2.
(c)	Hayward – counts 1, 2, 41, 44, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65,

78, 79, 86 and 89.

(d)	Jones – counts 1, 2, 7, 10, 21, 77, 78, 82 and 83. (e)	Lee – counts 1, 2, 3, 34, 35 and 78.
(f)	Lloyd – counts 1, 2, 13 and 78.

(g)	Pahl – counts 1, 2, 8, 18, 24, 25, 26 and 69.

(h)	Patrick – counts 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 27, 28, 34, 35 and 78. (i)	Rutledge – counts 1, 2 and 78.
(j)	Stacey – counts 1, 2, 14, 17, 22, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 46, 49,

50, 60, 62, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 78, 84 and 87. (k)	Thompson – counts 74 and 90.
Trial Two Indictment

(l)	Antonievic – count 1.

(m)	Daly – counts 1, 15, 21, 27 and 28. (n)	Friend – counts 6, 17 and 19.

(o)	Griffiths – counts 11 and 18.

(p)	Kirkwood – counts 9, 10, 16 and 20. (q)	Page – count 1.
(r)	Smith – count 1.

D B Collins J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Nelson
Bamford Law, Nelson for Defendants Lloyd, Jones and Page
Rout Milner Fitchett, Nelson for Defendant Rutledge
Spear Law, Nelson for Defendant Hayward
Zindels, Nelson for Defendants Antonievic and Smith