O'Sullivan v The Queen

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANTS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 77/2018
[2018] NZSC 117

BETWEEN	PATRICK MAURICE O’SULLIVAN Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	William Young, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person M H Cooke for Respondent
Judgment:	28 November 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 November 2018 (O’Sullivan v R [2018] NZSC 103) is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks a recall of our judgment of 7 November 2018 in which we dismissed his application for leave to appeal.[1] In support he has filed nine pages of detailed and closely argued submissions which encompass many complaints as to the approaches taken in the Courts below and, most significantly, the conclusion of this Court that the critical finding of indecency by the trial Judge was based on the externalities of the applicant’s conduct towards the complainant Y.[2]
[1]O’Sullivan v R [2018] NZSC 103.
[2]At [5].
We have carefully considered the arguments of the applicant and are satisfied that they do not provide appropriate grounds for the recall of our judgment.
The recall application is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of O'Sullivan v The Queen was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand, presided over by Justices William Young, O’Regan, and Ellen France. The applicant, Patrick Maurice O’Sullivan, sought to appeal the dismissal of his application for leave to appeal, which was originally denied in a judgment issued on 7 November 2018. O’Sullivan argued that the Court's decision was flawed, particularly regarding the trial judge's finding of indecency based on his conduct towards the complainant. The applicant filed nine pages of submissions detailing his grievances and requested a recall of the previous judgment.

The legal issues central to this case revolved around the validity of the trial judge's finding of indecency and whether this finding was sufficient to uphold the conviction. O’Sullivan argued that the Court's reliance on the externalities of his conduct was erroneous, and that the finding of indecency did not meet the required legal standards. Additionally, the applicant questioned the overall fairness and correctness of the proceedings that led to his conviction.

The Supreme Court, upon reviewing O’Sullivan's extensive submissions, found that they did not provide adequate grounds for recalling the earlier judgment. The Court was satisfied that the trial judge's finding of indecency was correctly based on the evidence and was consistent with legal standards. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for recall, affirming the original judgment. The Court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the trial judge's findings and highlighted the limited circumstances under which a recall of a Supreme Court judgment would be appropriate.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established