Dickey v R [2023] NZCA 9 (10 February 2023)

Last Updated: 13 February 2023

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA393/2018 [2023] NZCA 9

	BETWEEN	GEORGIA ROSE DICKEY Appellant
	AND	THE KING Respondent

CA27/2019
	BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER JAMES BROWN Appellant
	AND	THE KING Respondent
CA645/2020
	BETWEEN	KATRINA ROMA EPIHA Appellant
	AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Miller, Collins and Simon France JJ
Counsel:	D J More and F C D More for Appellant in CA393/2018 F E Guy Kidd KC, L C Preston KC and K M Barker for Appellant in CA27/2019 H G de Groot and T J Conder for Appellant in CA645/2020 C A Brook, R K Thomson and T C Didsbury for Respondent in CA393/2018, CA27/2019 and CA645/2020
Judgment: (On the papers)	10 February 2023 at 12 noon

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. The application to recall this Court’s judgment [2023] NZCA 2 is granted.
2. The judgment is recalled and reissued as described at [6].

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Collins J)

[1] On 27 January 2023, this Court issued a judgment allowing the appeals against sentence brought by all three appellants.^[1] Thereafter counsel for Mr Brown and Ms Epiha applied for a recall of the judgment and for parts of the judgment relating to their clients’ personal circumstances to be either deleted or made subject to a suppression order.

[2] We have granted the request made by Mr Brown by either deleting or amending in the reissued judgment the matters that caused him concern. Those changes are at [30] and [53] of the reissued judgment.

[3] We have granted part of Ms Epiha’s application. Those changes are at [65] and [75] of the reissued judgment. The parts of Ms Epiha’s application that we have not granted are, in the Court’s assessment, necessary in order for a reader of the judgment to properly understand the Court’s reasons.

[4] Because the Court has amended its judgment to accommodate all of the issues raised by Mr Brown and a number of the issues raised by Ms Epiha, there is no need for suppression orders.

[5] The application for recall of the Court’s judgment is granted.

[6] The judgment is recalled and reissued with amendments at [30], [53], [65] and [75].

Solicitors:
Scholefield Law, Invercargill for Appellant in CA393/2018
Holland Beckett Law, Tauranga for Appellant in CA645/2020
Crown Law Office | Te Tari Ture o te Karauna, Wellington for Respondent in CA393/2018, CA27/2019 and CA645/2020

---

^[1] Dickey v R [2023] NZCA 2.