Matt is a senior criminal defence lawyer, with a reputation for consistently securing successful outcomes for his clients. He is a fearless advocate, who has over 30 years’ experience in arguing for clients in trial and on appeal.

Matt is well respected for his thorough analysis of the evidence and his development of trial strategy in consultation with clients. Matt never forgets the paramount importance of each case to his client and their whanau. He is personable, approachable and an excellent listener, giving advice which is empathetic, realistic and clear.

In the courtroom Matt’s approach is adaptable, depending on the nature of the case, the type of witness being called and who the decision-maker is. Matt has a powerfully understated presence in court that contrasts brilliantly with those moments when he dissects a witness is delivering a closing address or standing up to a judge.

Often Matt utilises a team approach, working with his junior Ciara to prepare the case for trial or appeal. Other professionals may be instructed to assist, such as private investigators, scientists and medical professionals. In all cases, their objective is to provide the best possible results for clients.

For recent updates on our case outcomes, please see our ‘News’ page. For privacy, our client’s identifying information has been removed.

Appeals

L v R [2021]: Our client was charged with raping and sexually abusing his ex-partner. L appealed on the ground of trial counsel error – his trial lawyer had incorrectly advised him on the need to provide a proper evidential foundation for his defence on some of the charges. Successful appeal, as his convictions were set aside and a retrial was ordered.

S v R [2020]: S had been found guilty at trial of manslaughter and kidnapping, then sentenced to six years’ imprisonment was imposed in the High Court. On appeal, his sentence was reduced to five years’ imprisonment, as the Court of Appeal found the discount for personal mitigating factors was insufficient.

LS v R [2019]: Appeal against conviction on charges of sexual offending. We argued that the Crown had laid representative charges, which failed to identify differences in location and circumstances of the alleged offending, creating a risk that the jury had not unanimously agreed. Successful appeal, retrial ordered.

C v R [2019]: Appeal against sentence for wounding with intent and aggravated burglary. Application to adduce cultural report as fresh evidence pursuant to s 27 Sentencing Act, which had not been proffered by trial counsel. Report admitted and appeal allowed, sentence reduced.

Trials

R v T [2020]: T and others faced trial at the High Court on charges of the aggravated robbery of the ANZ branch at Papakura South. The Crown sought to rely on phone data (text and polling/GPS) to prove T’s involvement and place him near the scene of the incident. We argued the evidence was insufficient and in fact showed T was not involved in the events. The jury agreed, T was acquitted.

R v M [2021]: M was charged with wounding with intent to grievous bodily harm after he made contact with a seller on Facebook MarketPlace; who he believed stole goods from his business. A fight erupted when the two met at the Complainant’s address and he tried to re-sell the goods back to M. We argued self-defence at trial, as the evidence showed that M only intended retrieve his goods without violence. The defence was successful, M was acquitted.

R v B [2021]: B was an online blogger, who co-ran a Facebook news page. He faced three charges of distributing objectionable material. We successfully argued that the evidence did not (and could not) attribute the offending to B. The Crown ended up withdrawing the charges prior to trial.

R v K and K: Our client and her husband were charged with defrauding their employer, an Australian company operating in NZ. Both defendants were in senior management positions and had their employment terminated. When Matt was cross-examining a director of the company, it became clear that crucial disclosure had not been provided. The trial was aborted and the judge aborted the trial and granted a stay against proceedings being issued in the future.

R v W and T [2019]: Trial on murder and kidnapping charges, dubbed by the media as “the House of Horrors case”. Two adults and two teenagers took another teenager to an abandoned house, tortured her and then she was hung. Defence for our client was that she wasn’t involved in the hanging and did not intend to kill the victim. Crown case primarily relied on evidence from one of the teenagers present, who had been granted immunity from prosecution and W’s admissions.

R v Y [2018]: Y was charged with killing an elderly man in a stairwell after a drug deal went wrong. Y had a history of psychiatric illness and admission to mental health facilities in NZ and overseas. At a pretrial hearing he was ruled fit to stand trial. His defence was insanity, with evidence from psychiatrists called by the Crown and defence to with conflicting views. Controversy at trial developed as to decision by Te Whetu Tawera facility at Auckland Hospital to release him days before the killing occurred.

Sentencing

R v VS [2018]: Our client VS was convicted of wounding her ex husband with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. During an argument at her home, VS had picked up carving knife from the kitchen bench and stabbed her ex husband in the chest. The stab wound required minor surgery. At sentencing, we were successful in arguing that a conviction would mean that it was likely she would be deported and separated from her children.

R v DC [2018]: Our client was originally charged with the manslaughter of his grandmother arising from an argument at her home when it was alleged he advanced on her, she fell over, broke her hip, was hospitalised and died from an infection. After protracted negotiations, the Crown agreed to reduce the charge with causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure and DC pleaded guilty to that amended charge. At sentencing, we successfully submitted that he should be sentenced to a term of home detention, not imprisonment.

“When i met Matt my life was in a shambles. Meeting Matt and having him take my case was life-changing for me. Matt and his team were always there for me and always had my best interests at heart. He never gave up on me and helped me turn my life around. My heart goes out to Matt for everything he has done for me.”
HP

“….to hear your empathy today towards our situation is indescribable and is an absolute credit to you and the way you run your business. I truly just wanted to thank you from the bottom of my heart for being so genuine and thoughtful more than any lawyer I can imagine…Thanks for your honesty always, and for your kindness”
LK

“Matt, thanks for an awesome result. You listened to what I said, you tracked down my ex’s affidavits and you pointed out plenty of inconsistencies between those documents and her evidence at my rape trial. You made the jury understand all the problems with the prosecution case. I can’t thank you enough, I can finally get on with my life again”
MD

“This is the first time I’ve been charged with criminal offences….I was really worried about going through the court process and going to jail. I had lots of questions, you were always there, you were patient and explained things clearly to me, even after hours…. Thanks for achieving a great result, the serious charge was dropped and the two other charges I pleaded guilty to I received a discharge without conviction. The final result was life changing”
YK

“I would like to thank you Matt for everything over the last 3.5 years. It definitely was a long and hard process but I am very satisfied with his work. From the beginning my matter was full of emotions and lots of patience from Matt’s end and that showed for the duration of my case – it helped me know that I was in good hands and that he tried his best, right to the end. I do have some regrets from my end however, I accept my sentence and know that there was nothing else we could do so for that I am thankful. I wish Matt the best and hope to see him soon!”
ML

Matt has a longstanding interest in ensuring that the criminal defence bar remains strong, and independent and that the court system functions to protect the rights of defendants. He has worked pro bono on issues arising in these areas for over 20 years.

Matt is currently a member of the New Zealand Bar Association and its influential Criminal Committee.

He is a member of the Criminal Bar Association and is a past Executive Committee member, instrumental in the national expansion of that organisation.

Matt was Chair of the Legal Services Committee, responsible for CBA issuing proceedings against the Ministry of Justice for denying access to justice through the imposition of fixed fees for criminal legal aid – CBA v Ministry of Justice (CA 606/2012, [2013] NZCA 176). The appeal was partially successful, requiring MOJ to exercise wider discretion in assessing claims in more complex cases and resulting in the funding system for legally aided cases being made more sustainable.

He has presented lectures to other criminal lawyers on the Legal Aid framework and the criminal disclosure process.

Spencer acts in a support role for both Matt and Ciara, assisting with legal research, drafting documents, liaising with the courts and clients.

His background in law stems from 4 years of experience as a Deputy Registrar in the Auckland Criminal courts. He was known for his efficiency and professionalism in court hearings, and was one of the few able to run plea courts as a quasi-judicial officer. He would later come into case management of jury trial matters, allowing him to develop a strong understanding of jury trial management.

Spencer is studying a Bachelor of Law at AUT and intends to practise as a criminal barrister, taking inspiration from both Matt and Ciara.

.

Jane acts in a support role for Matt, Ciara and Spencer, drafting invoices and costs estimates, providing them with policy advice on legal aid files and chasing outstanding invoices.

Her background is in legal aid funding, having worked more recently for 14 years at Legal Aid Services, a division of the Ministry of Justice. Jane was promoted to Team Leader, training other legal aid staff on the application of policy decisions. She has a far reaching understanding of the legal aid funding model and the scope within it to obtain funding approval. Jane acts as consultant to Goodwin Law and outside practices.