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.

“….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.

Ciara works alongside Matt as his junior, assisting with the preparation of files for serious jury trial matters or appeals to all appellate courts, including the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Ciara also represents clients charged with less serious offences, including assaults, driving-related and firearm offences. She has achieved considerable success in obtaining discharges without conviction for clients, including for those charged with high breath-alcohol readings (exceeding 1,000 mgs).

With an eye for detail, Ciara is smart, a lateral thinker and maintains focus on the defence strategy. She is a hard worker and fights passionately in court for her clients to achieve the best possible results.

Ciara has a unique ability to make the complex look simple and regularly digests voluminous evidence to provide clients with clear advice.

Ciara often receives feedback for her easy and calm manner with clients. Her personable and approachable nature leads to her building constructive and honest relationships with those she works with.

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]: L was charged with sexual offending against a family member. L appealed on the ground of trial counsel error – incorrect legal advice was given concerning the evidential foundation for the defence in respect of some of the charges. Convictions set aside, successful appeal.

S v R [2020]: S was found guilty of manslaughter and other charges, and a sentence of six years’ imprisonment was imposed in the High Court. On appeal, a sentence of five years’ imprisonment was substituted as the Court of Appeal found the discount for personal mitigating factors to be insufficient.

Trials

R v T [2020]: T and others faced trial at the High Court having been charged with aggravated robbery (14 years maximum period of imprisonment) and other offences. The Crown sought to rely on phone data (text and polling) to prove T’s involvement and place him near the scene of the incident. We argued the evidence was insufficient and if anything, showed T had not been 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 (14 years maximum period of imprisonment), 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 to attend the address for his goods to be returned without violence. The defence was successful, M was acquitted.

R v B [2021]: B was an independent online journalist who co-ran a Facebook news page. B was charged with distributing objectionable material (maximum period of imprisonment 14 years) in the capacity of his work. We successfully argued that the evidence did not (and could not) attribute the offending to B. Responsibly, the Crown withdrew the charge prior to the trial commencing.

Sentencing

New Zealand Police v R [2021]: R was charged with driving with excess breath alcohol and returned an alcohol-breath reading of 980 mgs. R was a successful sports person and intended to travel abroad to further his career. Having engaged two-overseas experts, Ciara argued that R should be discharged without a conviction as the gravity of the offence outweighed the consequences of a conviction. A discharge without conviction was granted.

New Zealand Police v C [2021]: C was charged with driving with excess breath alcohol, having been pulled over in Auckland CBD for his poor driving standard and returning a reading of 1004 mgs. C pleaded guilty at an early stage and applied for a discharge without conviction on the basis that if he were to be convicted, he would likely be deported. Ciara successfully argued the consequences were severe, with D being the main provider for his young family, and he was successfully discharged.

S v New Zealand Police [2020]: S was charged with careless driving causing injury for an incident that occurred on his way home from work, resulting from extreme exhaustion. S was an academic and having a conviction would stymie the progression of his career. Ciara successfully argued that the gravity of the offending was low – moderate but the consequences of a conviction for D were severe. D was successfully discharged.

.

“As an interpreter, I have been a part of many applications for section 106. It is clear to me and every client I have assisted that it is extremely difficult to get but we still give it a shot to prevent conviction. In all the cases I have been involved with, I have never met anyone who worked harder than Ciara Chester-Cronin. She did not only give what is expected as a lawyer, she exceeded expectations with the client. I am very impressed with every step she took in advising him about what needs to be done to meet not just the minimum requirements of the application but to do other ways that other lawyers have not thought of doing. She did not pretend to know everything, she was not shy in showing how she is finding ways to be better equipped as a lawyer. The client was very lucky to have Ciara as his lawyer. It was also a privilege for me to work with her. I am inspired by her professionalism and diligence.”
Rose Conception, Interpreter

“It was a brilliant outcome for my son, one in which Ciara made just as possible as all that have helped. We are completely impressed with Ciara and cannot thank her enough for everything and for making our son’s journey a more positive one. She has truly been a saviour and a lifeline, her care, kindness, guidance, patience and empathy is outstanding. Ciara is a star at what she does, very professional yet extremely approachable and easy to deal with. Thank you Ciara for believing in our son and persevering. It means so much to us. We wish you the best always. You are a beautiful person.”
Karen, Tauranga

“On a professional note, we are so grateful to Ciara for her legal expertise and compassion and warmth in dealing with our son’s matter. The end result would have been exceptionally different had we not engaged her services – beyond words to express. Ciara, continue being that shining light advocating for others, through the good and the bad times.”
Charlotte, Auckland

“I would like to sincerely thank Ciara for all her help and advice with my matter. It was a pretty stressful time for me so many thanks for all her help and support. I wish her the best of luck.”
H, Auckland

“I’d like to take an opportunity to thank Ciara for helping me through a difficult time in my life that brought about a lot of anxiety and uncertainty. Ciara helped put things in perspective when I was feeling quite overwhelmed. She broke down the process so it was easy for me to understand and kept me updated, even while she was travelling to other parts of the country for other clients. Her professionalism gave me confidence and set my mind as ease.”
R, Auckland

“I would like to thank Ciara for all her ongoing support throughout my case. I was happy with the advice she gave me. Ciara provided me with all my ‘options’ so that I could choose the right path for my matter. In the end we got a great result but that is a result of her hard work. In the future, I hope I don’t have to use Ciara’s services again but I would highly recommend her to anyone else who might find themselves in a similar position.”
J, Auckland

New Zealand Law Society and Auckland District Law Society

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.