de Mey v R

In de Mey v R, the applicant, Ramon Dirk Johannes de Mey, sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand against a decision of the Court of Appeal that declined his application to re-open his appeal against conviction for common assault. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed Mr de Mey’s appeal against conviction on 17 December 2004. The application for leave to appeal was refused by Gault J and Blanchard J.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to hear Mr de Mey’s application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's refusal to reopen his appeal. This required the court to interpret the statutory framework governing the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in criminal cases involving jury trials and appeals against conviction. Specifically, the court had to determine if the decision refusing to reopen the appeal was one that the Supreme Court could hear under section 383A of the Supreme Court Act 2003.

The court held that its jurisdiction was entirely statutory and that, in criminal cases involving jury trials, section 10 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 authorised the Court to hear and determine appeals only where authorised by Part XIII or section 406A of the Crimes Act 1961. Section 383A of the Supreme Court Act allowed for an appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal on appeal under section 383. However, the court found that a decision refusing to reopen an appeal was not a decision "on appeal under section 383". Instead, it was a preliminary decision that the Court of Appeal would not reconsider its original decision on appeal, which did not fall within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr de Mey’s application for leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court of New Zealand refused leave to appeal, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr de Mey’s application against the Court of Appeal's refusal to reopen his appeal.