R v Parry [2022] NZDC 3201 (25 February 2022)

Last Updated: 30 June 2022

EDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO THIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT GISBORNE I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA

CRI-2021-016-000441 [2022] NZDC 3201

THE QUEEN

v

[RYAN PARRY]

Hearing:	24 February 2022
Appearances:	J Bridgman for the Crown N Wright for the Defendant
Judgment:	25 February 2022

RULING OF JUDGE W P CATHCART [REASONS]

[1] This ruling records my brief reason for granting Mrs Wright’s application to withdraw as counsel on the morning of trial.

Background

[2] Mrs Wright was assigned the case on 15 April 2021.

[3] On 22 February 2022, Mrs Wright filed a brief memorandum outlining her dealings with a potential defence witness, Mr Matene Maraki. In her memorandum, she said that she went to “fully brief” this proposed witness on Sunday, 20 February 2022. And that previously there “had only been limited contact with the witness via telephone”. Without any particulars, she stated that “during the briefing” it “became

R v [RYAN PARRY] [2022] NZDC 3201 [25 February 2022]

apparent (to her) that a conflict of interest had arisen for counsel”. The memorandum was conspicuously absent of sufficient detail. And focused entirely on a suggested conflict vis-à-vis the proposed witness.

[4] At the hearing on 24 February 2022, Mrs Wright pursued her application to withdraw as counsel. She told me Mr Maraki had told her something during the “full” briefing on Sunday that “came as a surprise” to her.1 And then Mrs Wright referred to something to do with “crayfish and money owed”. Because I have no knowledge of the case, that little piece of information meant nothing to me. And I struggled to understand what it was that supported the notion there was a real conflict of interest here. The piecemeal manner of presentation did not assist in that understanding.

[5] Mrs Wright then appeared to shift ground. She told me she was assigned counsel on an appeal against sentence involving Mr Maraki. And apparently, I was the Judge who sentenced Mr Maraki. She made no mention about whether my involvement in the Maraki sentencing—which I cannot even remember—raised an issue about whether I should recuse myself.

[6] Mrs Wright told me she received a “written waiver” from both Mr [Parry] and Mr Maraki to act for them individually. Mrs Wright said it was possible Mr Maraki may be giving evidence that potentially incriminates him. And said that his general evidence was likely relevant to trial issues, particularly the intent factor.

Crown email to defence counsel dated 22 February 2022

[7] Although not addressed at the hearing, Crown counsel had sent an email response to Mrs Wright on 22 February. In that email, Mr Bridgman said he was unsure about the nature of the conflict asserted. And he pointed out in the email that Mr Maraki had pleaded guilty to his charge; that the appeal relates only to sentence and that he cannot prejudice himself now that he is convicted.

[8] Then Mr Bridgman’s email essentially responded to a different proposition raised by Mrs Wright, that is, whether the fact I presided over the Maraki sentencing

1 Mrs Wright told me she had “initially” briefed the witness last week.

would have any impact on the trial against Mr [Parry]. There Mr Bridgman pointed out the sentencing apparently did not discuss facts in detail. And that Mr Maraki was convicted of burglary whereas the allegation here is apparently Mr [Parry]’s liability for storing and receiving an item. In his email, Mr Bridgman opined that any knowledge I had of that earlier sentencing could not be said to impact on Mr [Parry]’s trial.

[9] As is apparent from the email, Mrs Wright had obviously raised then a multitude of issues, including whether I should preside over the [Parry] hearing. During oral submissions, however, she backed off from raising any recusal issue making no submissions on the point.

Outcome

[10] At the conclusion of Mrs Wright’s oral submissions, I was left unsure about the parameters of the conflict of interest she was trying to articulate. And unsure whether the oral submissions masked a hidden point about possible recusal.

[11] However, Crown counsel was prepared to accept that overall Mrs Wright should withdraw from the case because she may not be in a position to fully represent Mr [Parry].

[12] For that reason alone, I granted Mrs Wright leave to withdraw.

Judge W P Cathcart

District Court Judge | Kaiwhakawā o te Kōti ā-Rohe

Date of authentication | Rā motuhēhēnga: 25/2/2022