Brendon Douglas Forrest v The Queen

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand
SC 15/2010
[2010] NZSC 43

BRENDON DOUGLAS FORREST
v
THE QUEEN
Court: Blanchard, McGrath and Wilson JJ
Counsel: Applicant in person
N P Chisnall for Respondent

Judgment:      21 April 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]      The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the dismissal by the Court of Appeal of his appeal against the imposition of a term of 18 months imprisonment for perjury cumulative upon an existing sentence, part of which was the subject of a previous unsuccessful application for leave to appeal to this Court. The applicant apparently wishes to argue on appeal that the sentencing Judge gave no or insufficient weight to the totality of the applicant’s sentences and to a disorder from which he suffers.
[2]      As this Court said recently in Burdett v R:
This Court has previously had occasion to point out that the primary responsibility for reviewing levels of sentencing rests with the Court of Appeal which, because of the large number of sentencing appeals coming before it, has expertise and experience in the area which this Court lacks. Second level appeal Courts in comparable jurisdictions also do not regard themselves as the appropriate vehicles to perform such a function. It will therefore be only in rare cases where some important question of general principle arises, such as the jurisdiction for the imposition of a sentence, or where there is plainly an appearance of a substantial miscarriage of justice, that this Court will grant leave on a sentencing matter.

[3] In the present case no important question of general principle arises and there is no appearance of a substantial miscarriage of justice. Leave to appeal is therefore refused.
Solicitors:
Crown Law, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brendon Douglas Forrest, the appellant, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal against the sentence imposed by the High Court for perjury, which was to run concurrently with another sentence. The Supreme Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether leave to appeal should be granted.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the appellant's appeal against the sentence imposed by the High Court warranted a second level appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that the sentencing judge did not give adequate consideration to the totality of the sentences imposed and his disorder. The court had to consider whether this amounted to an important question of general principle or a substantial miscarriage of justice, which would warrant granting leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was the appropriate forum for reviewing sentencing decisions and that the appellant's case did not present an important question of general principle or an appearance of a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court cited its previous ruling in Burdett v R, which established that leave to appeal would only be granted in rare cases where such conditions were met. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

In light of the above, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal. The court emphasised that the Court of Appeal was the appropriate body for reviewing sentencing decisions and that the appellant's case did not meet the criteria for granting 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