A v The Queen - [2012] NZSC 84

NOTE: THERE IS AN EXTANT ORDER SUPPRESSING THE NAMES AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE APPLICANT AND HER FATHER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 43/2012
[2012] NZSC 84

THE QUEEN

Court: Elias CJ, McGrath and Chambers JJ

Counsel: C Mitchell for Applicant
A Markham for Crown

Judgment: 16 October 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application to recall this Court’s judgment is dismissed.

REASONS

The applicant seeks recall of our judgment declining her leave to appeal.[1] The ground for recall is that the applicant has felt obliged to resign from her job after her employer found out about her conviction. Mr Mitchell argues that the Court should reconsider its earlier decision in light of what are now known to be the consequences of her conviction.
[1] A v R [2012] NZSC 76.
This is not a ground for recall. The Court of Appeal, like the sentencing judge, fully considered the impact of conviction upon the applicant’s employment in future, accepting there could be adverse effects. Those adverse effects had to be weighed against wider community interests. The fact an adverse effect may have come to pass is therefore not an unexpected consequence of the conviction. No grounds for recall have been made out.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington, for Respondent

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read A v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NZSC 84
Decision Date: 16 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of A v The Queen involved an application by the applicant, referred to as A, to recall the Court's earlier judgment declining her leave to appeal her conviction. The Court, consisting of Elias CJ, McGrath, and Chambers JJ, dismissed the application. Counsel for the applicant, C Mitchell, argued that the Court should reconsider its earlier decision due to the applicant's subsequent resignation from her job after her employer became aware of her conviction. The applicant contended that this outcome demonstrated the unforeseen consequences of her conviction, which warranted a recall of the Court's judgment.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's resignation from her job, a consequence not anticipated at the time of the original judgment, constituted a ground for recalling the Court's earlier decision. The Court had to determine if this new development provided sufficient basis to reconsider its previous ruling. The Crown, represented by Markham, argued that the adverse employment consequences were already considered in the original judgment and weighed against the broader community interests, and thus did not constitute a ground for recall.

The Court held that the fact that the applicant had resigned from her job was not a sufficient ground for recall. The Court of Appeal and the sentencing judge had already considered the potential adverse effects of the conviction on the applicant's employment. The applicant's resignation did not constitute an unexpected consequence that warranted reconsideration of the judgment. The Court maintained that the adverse effects had to be balanced against the interests of the wider community, and the applicant's resignation did not alter the original assessment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for recall, affirming its earlier decision.

Orders