Clarke v R

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 47/2005
[2005] NZSC 60
NEIL MARTIN CLARKE
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Elias CJ and Tipping J
Counsel:Appellant in person

Judgment:29 August 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]       The appellant, Mr Clarke, was convicted in the District Court on one charge of trespass. His general appeal to the High Court was dismissed. He sought leave from the High Court to appeal to the Court of Appeal. That application was dismissed.
[2]       He then brought an application to the Court of Appeal for special leave to appeal. That application was also dismissed. There is no right of appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal’s decision refusing leave.[1]
[1]      Simpson v Kawarau District Council SC CRI 13/2004; (2004) 17 PRNZ 358.
[3]       Mr Clarke has accordingly sought leave to appeal to this Court, not from the Court of Appeal’s decision, but directly from the decision of the High Court dismissing his general appeal. Although there is no statutory bar against the bringing of a direct appeal in these circumstances, the Court has already held[2] that, unless there are truly compelling circumstances, direct appeals should not be permitted when their effect would be to circumvent the inability of an appellant to appeal from the order of the Court of Appeal refusing special leave.
[2]Young v Land Transport Safety Authority [2005] NZSC 51; Burke v The Western Bay of Plenty District Council [2005] NZSC 46.
[4]       In addition, of course, exceptional circumstances must be established to justify an appeal direct from the High Court to this Court.[3]
[3]      Section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.
[5]       The present application fails on both counts. There is nothing sufficiently exceptional or compelling in this case to justify the points at issue being considered by this Court. In that respect we adopt the reasons given by the Court of Appeal when it declined, as long ago as 20 September 2004, to grant Mr Clarke special leave to appeal to that Court. Furthermore, the case does not satisfy the general criteria for the granting of leave to appeal to this Court. It is not necessary in the interests of justice for this Court to hear the proposed appeal. The case does not involve a matter of general or public importance, nor do we consider a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur unless the appeal is heard.[4]
[4]      Section 13(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003.
[6]       It is for these reasons that the application is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an application for leave to appeal from Neil Martin Clarke against the Queen. Clarke was convicted of trespass in the District Court and subsequently lost his appeal in the High Court. He applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed. Clarke then sought special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, but this was also dismissed. Clarke subsequently sought leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court's decision dismissing his appeal. The Supreme Court considered whether there were compelling circumstances to justify a direct appeal, given the lack of a statutory bar to such appeals, but held that no such compelling circumstances existed.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether there were truly compelling circumstances to permit a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, and whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify an appeal directly from the High Court to the Supreme Court. The Court noted that while there was no statutory bar to a direct appeal, it had previously held that such appeals should not be permitted unless there were truly compelling circumstances. Additionally, exceptional circumstances must be established for an appeal directly from the High Court to the Supreme Court. The Court had to decide whether the circumstances in Clarke's case met these criteria.

The Supreme Court held that the application for leave to appeal directly from the High Court to the Supreme Court should be dismissed. The Court found that there were no compelling circumstances to justify a direct appeal, as the effect of such an appeal would be to circumvent the Court of Appeal’s decision refusing special leave. The Court also found that the case did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, as it was not necessary in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to hear the appeal, nor did it involve a matter of general or public importance. The Court did not consider that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred or may occur unless the appeal was heard. Therefore, the application was dismissed.

In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal directly from the High Court, finding that the circumstances did not justify such an appeal under the criteria established by previous case law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established