L v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 49/2005 [2005] NZSC 69

L

v

THE QUEEN

Court: Elias CJ and Tipping J Counsel: P J Davey for Appellant
B J Horsley and E A Gambrill for Crown

Judgment: 7 October 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1] Leave to appeal is granted.

[2] The approved grounds in terms of Rule 29 are:

1. Whether the Court of Appeal correctly analysed the ingredients of the offence of attempted sexual violation.

2. Whether the trial judge correctly directed the jury on the ingredients of the offence of attempted sexual violation and, in particular, whether the directions were correct in relation to the roles of the judge and jury in an attempt case of the present kind.

L v R SC 49/2005 [7 October 2005]

[3] We do not grant leave in relation to the proposed third ground which seeks to put in issue the evidentiary sufficiency of the verdicts. This ground contains no element of general or public importance nor can there be any suggestion that, on this ground, a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur unless it is considered by the Court.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an appeal in the matter of L v The Queen. The appellant, L, was convicted of an attempted sexual violation and sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The primary issues were the analysis and direction of the jury regarding the ingredients of the offence of attempted sexual violation. The appellant's counsel argued that the Court of Appeal and the trial judge had erred in their understanding and communication of the legal principles involved in the offence of attempted sexual violation. Specifically, the focus was on the roles of the judge and jury in such cases, and whether the jury was correctly directed on these points.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on the specified grounds, allowing the appellant to challenge the legal analysis and jury directions. The court held that the proposed third ground, concerning the evidentiary sufficiency of the verdicts, did not possess the necessary elements of general or public importance to warrant consideration. The court determined that this ground did not suggest a substantial miscarriage of justice that required Supreme Court intervention. Consequently, the appeal proceeded on the first two grounds related to the legal analysis and jury direction of the offence of attempted sexual violation.

The final orders of the court were to grant leave to appeal on the specified grounds and to proceed with the appeal concerning the legal analysis and jury direction of the offence of attempted sexual violation. The court did not grant leave on the third proposed ground related to evidentiary sufficiency, finding it lacking in the necessary elements to warrant further consideration.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established