The applicant was convicted in March 2009 of an offence of dishonestly using a Goods and Services Tax return contrary to s 228(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. He was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment on 29 May 2009. An appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed on 5 March 2010. The present application seeks leave to appeal further to this Court.
The notice of appeal was not filed until 8 December 2010, some 8 months out of time. Inadequate explanation is given for the delay and we are not prepared to extend time without compelling explanation.
In addition, the proposed appeal attempts to re-litigate factual arguments and complains about factual errors in the trial Judge’s summing-up, fully answered in the reasons of the Court of Appeal in dismissing the applicant’s appeal to that court.
No matter of general or public importance is raised by the proposed further appeal. We are satisfied that there is no risk of substantial miscarriage of justice if the appeal is not heard. In those circumstances, the jurisdictional basis for leave to appeal contained in s 13(1) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 would not have been made out even had leave to appeal been sought within time.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

Details

AGLC: Palmer v R [2011] NZSC 25
Case: [2011] NZSC 25
Decision Date: 22 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Graham Ashley Robert Palmer appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The appellant was found guilty of using a Goods and Services Tax return dishonestly, a contravention of section 228(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. The appellant was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment. The appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, and this application seeks leave to appeal further to the Supreme Court. The application was filed 8 months out of time, with an inadequate explanation for the delay. The appeal attempts to re-litigate factual arguments and complains about factual errors in the trial Judge’s summing-up, which were fully answered in the reasons of the Court of Appeal in dismissing the appellant’s appeal to that court. The appeal does not raise any matter of general or public importance, and the Court is satisfied there is no risk of substantial miscarriage of justice if the appeal is not heard.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The late filing of the application and the inadequate explanation for the delay meant that the Court was not prepared to extend time without a compelling explanation. The proposed appeal attempted to re-litigate factual arguments and complained about factual errors in the trial Judge’s summing-up, which were fully answered in the reasons of the Court of Appeal. The Court was satisfied that there is no risk of substantial miscarriage of justice if the appeal is not heard. The Court noted that no matter of general or public importance was raised by the proposed further appeal. The jurisdictional basis for leave to appeal would not have been made out even had leave to appeal been sought within time.

Orders