Clifton v The Queen - [2005] NZSC 3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC CRI 19/2004
[2005] NZSC 3
CHRISTIAN PAUL CLIFTON
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Gault J and Tipping J
Counsel:P F Chambers for Applicant

J C Pike for Crown

Judgment:17 February 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

[1]       We have decided that this application can fairly be dealt with on the papers. Christian Paul Clifton seeks leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal against conviction. The decision of the Court of Appeal also declined the applicant’s application for leave to adduce further evidence. He seeks to put that decision in issue in this Court. At the same time as it dismissed the appeal against conviction, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by Mr Clifton against the total term of imprisonment imposed on him. The Court reduced the term from one of eight years three months to one of six years ten months. Mr Clifton seeks leave to appeal from the reduced sentence on the basis that it remains “manifestly excessive” in relation to the offending in question and his participation in it.
[2]       Mr Clifton was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of conspiring to import amphetamine, importing amphetamine, possession of amphetamine for supply, conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine, and related possession and precursor offences.
[3]       We note also that the applicant wishes to challenge two further aspects of the Court of Appeal’s handling of his appeal. First, he seeks to put in issue the decision made by Anderson P on behalf of the Court refusing to give him leave to be present at the hearing of his appeal. Secondly, he seeks to make something of the fact that the Court of Appeal took four months and 24 days to deliver its decision upon the various matters which he had put in issue in that Court.
[4]       The detailed grounds upon which leave is sought to appeal to this Court are all matters which relate to the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case. For example, there are several continued complaints about the summing‑up. The fresh evidence matters which Mr Clifton seeks to ventilate in this Court likewise involve the specifics of his case rather than any matters of general principle. Indeed, the submissions which have been filed in support of the grant of leave do not in any aspect seek to identify how the point in issue satisfies any of the criteria for leave set out in s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.
[5]       In no respect is it suggested, let alone established, that the proposed appeal involves a matter of general or public importance. For that to be so, this Court must be satisfied that the proposed appeal involves a point of general principle or a point having general importance in the administration of the criminal law. Unless a qualifying point can be identified this Court cannot find that it is necessary in the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Clifton v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] NZSC 3
Decision Date: 17 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Christian Paul Clifton sought leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's dismissal of his appeal against conviction. Clifton was found guilty of various drug-related offences including conspiracy to import amphetamine, importing amphetamine, possession of amphetamine for supply, and related offences. The Court of Appeal dismissed Clifton's appeal against conviction but reduced the sentence from eight years and three months to six years and ten months. Clifton argued that the sentence was still "manifestly excessive" and sought leave to appeal against the reduced sentence, as well as challenging other aspects of the Court of Appeal's handling of his appeal.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the application for leave to appeal involved a matter of general or public importance and whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice that warranted further review. The Court considered whether the proposed appeal involved a point of general principle or a point having general importance in the administration of the criminal law. The Court also considered whether there was a reasonable argument that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred unless the proposed appeal was heard.

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, holding that there was no matter of general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal. The Court noted that the applicant's submissions did not identify any such point. The Court also held that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice that warranted further review, as the Court of Appeal had given all the applicant's points detailed and careful consideration, and applied established principles to them. The Court emphasised that applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in a criminal matter which seek further review of discretionary rulings and the application of established legal principles to the facts of particular cases are generally futile unless they satisfy the statutory criteria set out in s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders