Partridge v The Queen

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA526/2015
[2015] NZCA 486

BETWEEN	RORY DAMIEN PARTRIDGE Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	12 October 2015
Court:	Ellen France P, Asher and Collins JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person (via videolink) K S Grau for Respondent
Judgment:	13 October 2015 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

[Reasons to follow]

For reasons which we will explain in a further judgment, we are dismissing Mr Partridge’s application for leave to appeal. We are issuing this results judgment at this stage so as to ensure no delay occurs to Mr Partridge’s sentencing hearing, which is scheduled for 21 October 2015.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of Partridge v The Queen was heard by Ellen France P, Asher, and Collins JJ. The applicant, Rory Damien Partridge, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. Partridge was found guilty of multiple serious criminal offences, including aggravated robbery and possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear. Partridge, appearing in person via videolink, argued that there were errors in the trial court's handling of evidence and procedural matters which warranted an appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether there were grounds sufficient to grant Partridge leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. Partridge argued that the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence and misapplying legal principles, which he contended had a significant impact on the outcome of his trial. The Crown, represented by K S Grau, contended that the trial was conducted fairly and that any alleged errors did not meet the threshold for allowing an appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that while Partridge had identified some perceived errors in the trial proceedings, they did not consider these errors to be of a nature that would likely affect the outcome of the appeal if it were to proceed. The Court emphasised that leave to appeal should only be granted if there is a substantial question of law of general public importance or if the applicant can demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice has occurred or is likely. In this case, the Court did not find that the alleged errors met these criteria. Consequently, the Court dismissed Partridge's application for leave to appeal, ensuring that his sentencing hearing could proceed as scheduled on 21 October 2015.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established