Carol Margaret Down v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 35/2011
[2011] NZSC 85

CAROL MARGARET DOWN

THE QUEEN

Court: Tipping, McGrath and William Young JJ

Counsel: A D Banbrook for Applicant
F Sinclair for Crown

Judgment: 12 August 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal which dismissed her appeal against convictions for dishonestly using documents and the sentence imposed.[1] The principal thrust of the applicant’s contention that she was wrongly convicted is evidentiary. Additional points are raised concerning the breadth of the concept of use, inconsistency of verdicts, the publication of an allegedly prejudicial newspaper article, and the length of her sentence.
[1]Down v R [2011] NZCA 138.
None of these matters raise any point of general or public importance sufficient to justify a grant of leave. Nor do we have any concern that refusal of leave might occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal dealt fully and carefully with the applicant’s grounds of appeal when deciding that the appeal to that Court should be dismissed. Nothing has been put forward that would justify a second appeal in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The application for leave to appeal to this Court must therefore be dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

Carol Margaret Down sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand against her conviction and sentence for dishonestly using documents, as previously dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal had found that the jury was properly directed on the law of dishonest use and had sufficient evidence to convict the applicant. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the applicant's claims regarding the breadth of the concept of use, inconsistency of verdicts, the publication of a prejudicial newspaper article, and the length of the sentence. The applicant argued that her conviction was based on insufficient evidence and that the sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Court of Appeal's decision raised any point of general or public importance sufficient to justify a grant of leave to appeal. The Supreme Court also found that refusal of leave would not occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Court of Appeal's decision correctly dismissed the applicant's appeal against her conviction and sentence, and whether the applicant had demonstrated that the Court of Appeal's decision raised any point of general or public importance sufficient to justify a grant of leave to appeal. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly dismissed the applicant's appeal and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Court of Appeal's decision raised any point of general or public importance sufficient to justify a grant of leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had properly directed the jury on the law of dishonest use and had sufficient evidence to convict the applicant. The Supreme Court also found that the applicant's claims regarding the breadth of the concept of use, inconsistency of verdicts, the publication of a prejudicial newspaper article, and the length of the sentence were without merit.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the Court of Appeal had dealt fully and carefully with the applicant's grounds of appeal when deciding that the appeal to that Court should be dismissed. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the law and that the jury had been properly directed on the law of dishonest use. The Supreme Court also found that the evidence was sufficient to convict the applicant and that the Court of Appeal had correctly dismissed the applicant's claims regarding the breadth of the concept of use, inconsistency of verdicts, the publication of a prejudicial newspaper article, and the length of the sentence. The Supreme Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Court of Appeal's decision raised any point of general or public importance sufficient to justify a grant of leave to appeal. The Supreme Court also found that refusal of leave would not occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court did not make any orders as it dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The applicant's convictions and sentence remained in place.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established