Manawatu v R - [2007] NZSC 13

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 92/2006
[2007] NZSC 13
CHRISTOPHER JOHN MANAWATU
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Elias CJ, McGrath and Anderson JJ
Counsel:T Ellis for Applicant

B J Horsley for Crown

Judgment:8 March 2007

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS

[1]       Mr Manawatu seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 10 November 2006 which dismissed his appeal against two sentences of imprisonment imposed in the High Court in 1995 and 1998. The former sentence was to three years’ imprisonment for aggravated robbery with a concurrent term of six months’ imprisonment for driving while disqualified. The latter sentence was to eight years’ imprisonment for manslaughter, with concurrent terms of four years’ imprisonment for reckless driving and three months’ imprisonment for excess blood alcohol.
[2]       The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals against these sentences in 1996 and 1999, deciding them under the procedure found to be invalid by the Privy Council in R v Taito.[1] Mr Manawatu became entitled to, and requested, a fresh hearing of his appeals on 29 March 2005. That hearing took place on 31 July 2006 and resulted in the judgment delivered on 10 November 2006.
[1][2003] 3 NZLR 577.
[3]       Mr Manawatu seeks leave to appeal to this Court on five grounds. Three of them involve complaints concerning the system for addressing criminal appeals in the Court of Appeal. The first concerns s 398 of the Crimes Act 1961 which restricts the delivery of separate judgments, and thus dissenting judgments, in criminal appeals in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal is said to have refused to make a declaration concerning the inconsistency of this provision with ss 14, 25(a) and 25(h) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and arts 14(1), 19(2) and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In essence the point is that s 398 is inconsistent with freedom of expression, the right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial court, and the right to appeal against sentence.
[4]       The second complaint concerns the regime for determination of criminal appeals. Counsel’s written submissions focus on the way the Criminal Appeal Division of the Court of Appeal operates. In that Division a permanent Judge of the Court of Appeal will generally sit with two High Court Judges to determine allocated criminal appeals. The criticism of s 398 of the Crimes Act is joined in with this ground.
[5]       Another complaint concerns what is said to be a discriminatory approach to criminal appeals in the Court of Appeal. It relies on the very small number of dissenting judgments in criminal cases in relation to those in civil cases. Obviously it is linked with the complaint concerning s 398.
[6]       None of these grounds relates to the appropriateness of the sentences imposed on Mr Manawatu in 1995 and 1998. The application rather seeks to bring a systemic challenge to aspects…

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.

Continue reading Manawatu v R

Details

AGLC: Manawatu v R [2007] NZSC 13
Case: [2007] NZSC 13
Decision Date: 8 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Manawatu v R, the applicant, Christopher John Manawatu, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal against two sentences of imprisonment imposed by the High Court in 1995 and 1998. The first sentence was three years' imprisonment for aggravated robbery, with a concurrent term of six months for driving while disqualified. The second sentence was eight years for manslaughter, with concurrent terms for reckless driving and excess blood alcohol. The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals against these sentences in 1996 and 1999, but a fresh hearing was requested and granted in 2005. Manawatu sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on five grounds, including complaints about the system for addressing criminal appeals in the Court of Appeal, and the independence and partiality of the Court that heard his appeal in 2006. He also argued that the Court of Appeal should have reduced his sentence on account of undue delay in the hearing of his appeal.

The Supreme Court considered the grounds for appeal and found that the first three grounds, which related to the system for addressing criminal appeals in the Court of Appeal, did not invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court found that the legislation did not mandate a particular outcome in these cases, and that it was not necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the appeal on these grounds. The fourth ground, concerning the independence and partiality of the Court, was also dismissed as there was no basis for the contention that the actions of a member of the Court affected the appellate process in any manner detrimental to the applicant. The final ground, concerning the undue delay in the hearing of the appeal, was also dismissed as the Court of Appeal had found that there was no evidence of any prejudice to the applicant arising from the delay, and that it was not necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the appeal on this ground.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal on all five grounds, finding that it was not necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the appeal. The Court accepted that a reduction in sentence might be an appropriate remedy for a breach of rights in the determination of a criminal appeal, but found that there was no proper basis for granting that remedy to Mr Manawatu. The Court of Appeal had found that there was no evidence of any prejudice to the applicant arising from the delay in the hearing of the appeal, and the Supreme Court found that nothing in the submissions made to them persuaded them that it was arguable that this conclusion was incorrect. The Supreme Court was satisfied that there was no proper basis of fact to raise the issue of whether justice required the sentences imposed in 1995 and 1998 to be reduced on account of delay.

Orders