Group who stood trial over burglary allegations fail in bid to sue Crown and top prosecutor

Crown prosecutor Pip Currie, pictured in 2013, denied misleading a jury in a 2007 Christchurch burglary case. Photo / David Alexander

Five people who sued the Crown and a top Christchurch prosecutor over allegations a jury was lied to during their alleged burglary ring trial have had claims for more than $1.2 million in damages thrown out by a judge.

The case, which had rumbled on for a decade, finally reached a conclusion with an eight-day civil hearing at the High Court in Christchurch earlier this year.

Vincent Clayton was arrested in 2005 following a police probe dubbed Operation Rhino into an alleged burglary ring in Christchurch.

Clayton was jailed for five years after being found guilty by a District Court jury in 2007.

But he claimed that Crown prosecutor Pip Currie, involved in high-profile cases including rapist and killer Liam Reid and sex corruption cop Gordon Meyer, intentionally misled the jury by withholding critical information.

He alleges that Currie knew a key witness, who has permanent name suppression and is only known as L, was getting a lighter sentence in exchange for testifying in his case.

Before or during the trial, Clayton and co-accused Linda Westbury, Peter Machirus, Nadia Pelenato, and Gary Morell, who are also suing Currie and the Crown, learned that L had been charged with subsequent, unrelated offences at Wellington District Court.

They wanted to know if L was getting any discount on their sentence for helping police, including giving evidence during their trial.

They allege that Currie didn't pass on all information about L's sentencing indication, which they claim helped the jury come to guilty verdicts.

The Court of Appeal later quashed the convictions and ordered a retrial.

But the retrial never happened as the Crown dropped the case.

Clayton and Westbury claimed that the events still hinder their day-to-day lives.

They claimed that Currie's "deceitful and intentional" actions "strikes at very heart" of the New Zealand justice and its integrity.

The pair were suing for hundreds of thousands in compensation.

But Justice Peter Churchman ruled that Currie never intentionally withheld any information.

"She genuinely, but mistakenly, believed she had put all relevant information before the court. She did not act recklessly in forming this view," he said.

Justice Churchman said the group had failed to establish the presence of malice or fraud on the part of Currie, which was a prerequisite to success with such claims.

He added: "The miscarriage of justice which occurred here did not amount to a breach of their NZBORA (New Zealand Bill of Rights Act) right to a fair trial and "even if damages were available for breach of a fair trial, this case is not exceptional and involved no egregious behaviour that would justify an award of damages."

Due to the "apparently impecunious nature" of all the plaintiffs, the judge found little point in awarding costs, but gave the Crown 10 working days to decide whether they will pursue a costs claim.