Edward Woodrow Collins v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 110/2009
[2010] NZSC 13
EDWARD WOODROW COLLINS
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Blanchard, McGrath and Wilson JJ
Counsel:W C Pyke for Applicant

M D Downs for Crown

Judgment:2 March 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]        The application concerns a conviction for conspiracy to supply methamphetamine.
[2]        This Court is being invited by the applicant to take a different view from the Court of Appeal about what was "reasonable evidence" of the charged conspiracy. The submission for the applicant would be that, while the evidence might establish participation in a conspiracy to import ephedrine, it is not enough to establish participation in a conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. This would require no more than a second level review of the evidence which the Court of Appeal, with justification, found to be adequate.
[3]        The second point intended to be argued is that the Judge's warning about convicting on the basis of hearsay evidence was inadequate when measured against the passage from Ahern vR[1] as adopted in R v Qui[2] by this Court. The Court of Appeal thought that in the circumstances of the case the warning, although not full, was adequate and we have no doubt that this Court would take the same view.
[1] (1988) 164 CLR 87 at p 104.
[2] [2008] 1 NZLR 1 at para [16].
[4]        No question of general principle arises and there is no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Edward Woodrow Collins has appealed against his conviction for conspiracy to supply methamphetamine, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish his participation in such a conspiracy. The Supreme Court of New Zealand reviewed the case and found that the Court of Appeal's assessment of the evidence was adequate. Collins also contended that the trial judge's warning about the use of hearsay evidence was inadequate, but the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's view that the warning was sufficient under the circumstances. The Court concluded that no question of general principle arose and that there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues in the case centred around the sufficiency of the evidence to support Collins' conviction for conspiracy to supply methamphetamine and the adequacy of the trial judge's warning regarding the use of hearsay evidence. The Court of Appeal had previously found the evidence sufficient and the warning adequate, and the Supreme Court agreed with these findings. Collins' argument that the evidence only established participation in a conspiracy to import ephedrine, rather than to manufacture methamphetamine, was deemed to be a second-level review of the evidence, which the Court of Appeal had already adequately addressed. Similarly, the Court found that the trial judge's warning about the use of hearsay evidence, although not perfect, was adequate given the context of the case.

The Supreme Court's reasoning was based on a review of the Court of Appeal's findings and the principles established in previous cases such as Ahern v R and R v Qui. The Court found no grounds to overturn the Court of Appeal's decision and dismissed Collins' application for leave to appeal. The Court noted that no question of general principle was involved and that there was no indication of a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court's judgment affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established