Brown v The Queen

NOTE: ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 MADE IN THE HIGH COURT REMAINS IN FORCE.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY
S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANT UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 94/2015
[2015] NZSC 148

BETWEEN	BROWN (SC 94/2015) Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	S J Shamy for the Applicant A Markham for the Respondent
Judgment:	20 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal,[1] dismissing an appeal against a High Court decision which in turn refused the applicant’s application for the charges against him to be dismissed under s 322 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.[2]
[1]Brown v R [2015] NZCA 325 (Wild, Keane and Kós JJ). The judgments were anonymised, with the applicant called “Brown” in the lower courts.
[2]R v Brown [2015] NZHC 1155 (Nation J).
There is a significant threshold to be met before this Court will grant an application for leave to appeal in a pre-trial matter.[3] In this case we do not consider that the matters put forward by the applicant have met that threshold. As the Crown submits, the issues can be raised again in any appeal should the applicant be convicted.
[3]Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 27, [2011] 3 NZLR 725 at [13].
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Addington Law Centre, Christchurch for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Brown v The Queen, the applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing an appeal against a High Court decision that had refused his application for the charges against him to be dismissed under section 322 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. The applicant, referred to as Brown, argued that the decision of the Court of Appeal should be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed the appeal, and the High Court had denied Brown's application for dismissal of charges. The Supreme Court, consisting of Glazebrook, Arnold, and O'Regan JJ, was tasked with determining whether the applicant had met the significant threshold necessary for granting leave to appeal in this pre-trial matter.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the applicant's arguments sufficiently met the high threshold required for leave to appeal in a pre-trial matter. The Court noted that the issues raised by Brown could be revisited in any appeal if he were to be convicted. The Crown argued that the applicant's case did not meet the threshold, and the Supreme Court agreed, considering that the applicant had not provided compelling reasons to warrant an exception to the general rule that leave to appeal would not be granted in pre-trial matters. The Court referenced the precedent in Hamed v R, which established the criteria for granting leave to appeal in such circumstances.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the issues raised were of sufficient significance to warrant the Court's intervention at the pre-trial stage. The Court held that the applicant's arguments did not meet the threshold for granting leave to appeal, and as such, the decision of the Court of Appeal stood. The Court concluded that the issues could be raised again in any future appeal should the applicant be convicted. The application was dismissed, and no leave to appeal was granted.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established