Mankelow v R

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 30/2007
[2007] NZSC 57
BRIAN JOHNSON MANKELOW
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ
Counsel:C Tennet for Applicant

M F Laracy for Crown

Judgment:20 July 2007

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
REASONS
[1]       Mr Mankelow seeks leave to appeal from the dismissal by the Court of Appeal of his appeal against conviction on four charges relating to the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine. The first of the proposed grounds derives from the fact that the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of a co-appellant, Mr Su’a. We consider this ground to be unarguable. There was a clear evidentiary distinction between the case against Mr Su’a and that on which Mr Mankelow was found guilty. The fact that the Court of Appeal considered the evidence in Mr Su’a’s case to be insufficient does not give rise to any inconsistency or miscarriage of justice by reason of the Court concluding that the evidence against Mr Mankelow was sufficient. Nor is there any force in the suggestion that the Court of Appeal abdicated its responsibilities in considering Mr Mankelow’s case.
[2]       The applicant’s second main point raises a question of admissibility. It suffers from the immediate difficulty that, despite there having been an opportunity to do so, the point was not raised in the Court of Appeal again on the conviction appeal. This Court will rarely entertain points on second appeal which were not raised on first appeal. In any event, we do not consider the applicant’s admissibility point to be of any general importance so as to qualify for leave to appeal to this Court. No significant question of law or principle arises.
[3]       The various allied points made in the application for leave are also no more than an attempt to have this Court conduct a second general appeal. Nothing has been raised which suggests that any substantial miscarriage of justice may occur if this Court does not entertain the proposed appeal. For these reasons the application is dismissed.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mankelow v R involved Brian Johnson Mankelow who sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his appeal against conviction on four charges relating to the possession and trafficking of methamphetamine. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand, comprising Tipping, McGrath, and Anderson JJ. The applicant was represented by C Tennet, while the Crown was represented by M F Laracy. The judgment was delivered on 20 July 2007.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Court of Appeal's decision to allow the appeal of a co-appellant, Mr Su'a, indicated any inconsistency or miscarriage of justice in the conviction of Mankelow. Additionally, the applicant raised a question regarding the admissibility of certain evidence which had not been previously raised in the Court of Appeal. The Court also considered whether there were any other substantial grounds for allowing the appeal that would justify a departure from the usual practice of not entertaining second appeals on points not previously raised.

The Court found that the distinction in evidence between the cases of Mr Su'a and Mankelow justified the different outcomes by the Court of Appeal. It was held that the insufficiency of evidence against Mr Su'a did not affect the sufficiency of the evidence against Mankelow. The Court further determined that the admissibility point raised by Mankelow was not of general importance and did not warrant a second appeal. The Court concluded that the application for leave to appeal did not present any substantial miscarriage of justice or significant legal questions that would warrant further appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established