Anthony Hugh Close v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 109/2011
[2011] NZSC 157

ANTHONY HUGH CLOSE

THE QUEEN

Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard and William Young JJ

Counsel: C W J Stevenson for Applicant
K A L Bicknell for Crown

Judgment: 16 December 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for five years and seven months on his pleas of guilty to nine counts of importing the class B controlled drug gamma-butyrolactone (GBL).[1] His appeal against sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal[2] and he now seeks leave for a further appeal.
[1] R v Close DC Wellington CRI-2009-085-5899, 8 October 2010.
[2] Close v R [2011] NZCA 434.
In submissions in support of the application counsel for the applicant suggests that this Court should reconsider the sentencing guidance in relation to class B drugs given by the Court of Appeal in R v Wallace and Christie.[3] Counsel also noted that this guidance was provided in the context of methamphetamine (then a class B drug) and not GBL and suggested that it ought not to be applied in GBL cases.
[3]R v Wallace [1999] 3 NZLR 159 (CA).
The sentence in this case was fully reviewed by the Court of Appeal. We can discern no arguable error of principle. It would therefore be inappropriate for us to repeat the review exercise.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand dealt with an application for leave to appeal by Anthony Hugh Close against his sentence for drug importation. The applicant was found guilty of importing gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), a class B controlled drug, and was sentenced to five years and seven months imprisonment. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed his appeal against the sentence, leading to this application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the sentencing guidance provided by the Court of Appeal in the case of R v Wallace and Christie, which dealt with methamphetamine, should be reconsidered and applied to cases involving GBL. The applicant's counsel argued that the guidance was specific to methamphetamine and should not be applied to GBL cases, suggesting a need for a different approach in sentencing for GBL. The Crown argued against the need for further review, maintaining that the Court of Appeal's review of the sentence was comprehensive and correct.

The Supreme Court, in dismissing the application for leave to appeal, noted that the Court of Appeal had thoroughly reviewed the sentence and found no arguable error of principle. The Supreme Court held that it would be inappropriate to repeat the review exercise, indicating confidence in the Court of Appeal's decision. The reasoning underscored the Court's reluctance to second-guess the Court of Appeal's detailed review and conclusion on the sentence.

No further orders were made by the Supreme Court beyond the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established