Le Page v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 29/2005 [2005] NZSC 48

ANTON MARK LE PAGE

v

THE QUEEN

Court: Keith J and Blanchard J Counsel: P S Neutze for Applicant
F E Guy for Respondent

Judgment: 14 July 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

[1] We are satisfied that this application can properly be determined on the basis of counsel’s written submissions without the need for an oral hearing.

[2] Following a police search of his motor vehicle during which controlled drugs and other articles were found the applicant was charged with offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and with possession of offensive weapons (s 202A(4) of the Crimes Act 1961).

[3] The admissibility of the evidence obtained by the search was challenged in a pre-trial application under s 344A of the Crimes Act. The High Court ruled that the

LE PAGE V R SC 29/2005 [14 July 2005]

evidence was admissible. The applicant then pleaded guilty on an amended indictment. He apparently did so in the belief that he would be able to continue to pursue his argument that the disputed evidence was inadmissible. He then brought an appeal against his conviction.

[4] The Court of Appeal appears to have treated his appeal as if in the circumstances he required leave to appeal, which it refused. But it went on to consider the substance of the challenge to the admissibility of the evidence and concluded that there was no basis for disagreeing with the High Court Judge’s determination, in the exercise of his discretion, that the evidence was admissible. The Court of Appeal’s formal judgment included an order that the appeal was dismissed.

[5] Counsel for the Crown accepts that the applicant had a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, without requiring leave, under s 383 of the Crimes Act notwithstanding his plea of guilty. This Court therefore has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeal if the leave criteria in s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 are satisfied.

[6] Plainly they are not. Despite the procedural confusion, the Court of Appeal has fully reviewed the High Court’s exercise of discretion. The applicant has accordingly not suffered any substantive disadvantage. The matters raised before the High Court essentially required determinations of fact which the Court of Appeal found no reason to disturb. The applicant has not put forward any matter of general principle appropriate to a second appeal nor anything suggestive that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Le Page v The Queen was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand, presided over by Justice Keith and Justice Blanchard. The applicant, Anton Mark Le Page, sought leave to appeal against his conviction following a police search of his vehicle which resulted in the discovery of controlled drugs and offensive weapons. Le Page was charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Crimes Act 1961. The admissibility of the evidence obtained from the search was contested in the High Court, which ruled in favour of admissibility. Despite this, Le Page pleaded guilty under the belief that he could continue to argue the admissibility of the evidence. His subsequent appeal was considered by the Court of Appeal, which concluded that there was no basis for disagreeing with the High Court's decision. The applicant then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which was dismissed.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were twofold: the procedural correctness of the Court of Appeal's handling of the appeal and whether the leave criteria under section 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 were satisfied. The Court of Appeal's procedural handling of the appeal, which treated it as requiring leave despite the applicant's right to appeal under section 383 of the Crimes Act, was noted. However, the Court found that the substantive issues had been fully reviewed, and the applicant had not suffered any substantive disadvantage. The Court also considered whether the applicant had raised any matter of general principle or suggested a miscarriage of justice, which he had not. The Court determined that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court, therefore, dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court reasoned that the procedural confusion did not result in any substantive disadvantage to the applicant, as the Court of Appeal had fully reviewed the High Court's exercise of discretion. The Court found no reason to disturb the factual determinations made by the Court of Appeal. Additionally, the applicant had not presented any matter of general principle or evidence of a miscarriage of justice, which would have been necessary to satisfy the leave criteria under section 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003. The Supreme Court concluded that the applicant's appeal did not meet the necessary criteria, and therefore, the application for leave was dismissed.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and no further appeal would be entertained on the grounds presented. The conviction and sentence of the applicant, Anton Mark Le Page, remained in place.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established