Shaun Allen (Appellant) v The King (Respondent) (New Zealand)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0011

Jurisdiction

New Zealand

Parties

Appellant(s)

Shaun Allen

Respondent(s)

Crown Law Office, New Zealand

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err by failing to find: (1) that the fresh evidence disclosed by the police and/or obtained since the trial establishes a miscarriage of justice. (2) That the appearance of jury bias amounts to a material irregularity in the proceedings and gives rise to a real possibility of bias that renders Mr Allen’s conviction unsafe. (3) The prosecution failed to disclose documents that undermined the police case and assisted the Defence case, such that there was a miscarriage of justice.

Facts

This appeal from New Zealand, the first to appear before the Privy Council in 10 years, relates to the cultivation of cannabis in Hawke’s Bay. In May 1992, Mr Shaun Allen purchased an 848-acre farm property in Hawke’s Bay. On or around 21 January 1993, Mr Allen was approached by police from a helicopter. As part of their operation, a police party identified a total of thirteen separate plots of cannabis. 1,038 plants were said to be found and recovered, varying in height from 30cm to 1.5 metres. On the same date, Mr Allen was arrested for the cultivation of cannabis. Mr Allen’s case at trial was that any cannabis found on the extensive property was not cultivated by him, and was either on the property before he acquired it, or was cultivated by trespassers without his knowledge. At his first trial on 23-25 August 1993, the jury were hung and discharged. At his re-trial on 26 January 1994, Mr Allen was convicted and sentenced to 18-months’ imprisonment. Mr Allen appealed his conviction, on the basis that fresh evidence allegedly established that cannabis was present on areas surrounding Mr Allen’s farm, suggesting that a trespasser grew it; and that certain jurors were associated with the police. On 19 December 1996, the Court of Appeal upheld his conviction, refusing to admit the fresh evidence, and finding that any juror’s association with the risk did not undermine the fair and impartial hearing he received. On 26 November 2020, the Court of Appeal refused to reopen the judgment. Mr Allen’s application to appeal to the Supreme Court in New Zealand was refused on 6 January 2021, on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction. The Appellant now applies to the Privy Council for permission to appeal, in addition to a lengthy extension of time. The Privy Council only retains jurisdiction over appeals heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand before the end of 2003.

Date of issue

12 February 2025

Case origin

PTA

Appeal

Justices

Lord Briggs

Lord Hamblen

Lord Burrows

Permission to Appeal

Permission to Appeal decision date

30 April 2025

Permission to Appeal decision

Refused

Back to top