Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 35/2016
[2016] NZSC 52

BETWEEN	MICHAEL MARINO Applicant
AND	THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	D A Ewen and G K Edgeler for Applicant D J Perkins and T P Westaway for Respondent
Judgment:	6 May 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 133).

B The approved question is:

Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002 or in the application of those sections to the position of the applicant?

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The Court has granted leave to appeal in another case which touches on the issue raised in the present application, although that case raises the issue as to how a sentence should be structured to deal with the impact of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002.[1]
[1]Booth v R [2016] NZSC 43.
That appeal is set down for hearing on 5 July 2016. The Registrar should set down the present appeal on the following day or another day in the same week, so that the Court can address the issues at the same time.
The applicant will have completed his prison term by the time of that hearing, which raises the issue of mootness. Counsel should address that issue in their submissions.

Solicitors:
Kerry Burroughs, Hamilton for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application for leave to appeal from Michael Marino against the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections. Marino sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's interpretation and application of sections 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002. These sections pertain to the conditions that must be met before a prisoner can be released on parole. The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its interpretation or application of these sections.

The Court acknowledged that an appeal in another case, Booth v R, was set to address similar issues regarding the Parole Act 2002. The Supreme Court decided to schedule the hearing of Marino's appeal to coincide with the hearing of the Booth appeal, to allow both matters to be addressed together. However, there was a concern that by the time of the hearing, Marino would have already completed his prison term, potentially rendering the case moot. The Court directed the parties to address this issue in their submissions.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and scheduled the hearing, indicating that the matter would be considered concurrently with the Booth appeal. This decision ensures that the interpretation and application of the Parole Act 2002 will be thoroughly examined, potentially providing clarity on the legal issues raised in both cases. The final orders of the Court will follow the submissions addressing the mootness issue and the merits of the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established