Paul Joseph Cameron v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 30/2008
[2008] NZSC 60
PAUL JOSEPH CAMERON
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Blanchard, Tipping and Wilson JJ
Counsel:D J Sharp for Applicant

S Mount for Crown

Judgment:1 August 2008

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
REASONS
[1]       The applicant seeks leave to bring a “leapfrog” appeal directly from the High Court against his conviction for murder. Prior to the trial the Court of Appeal determined on an appeal under s 379A of the Crimes Act 1961 that certain evidence of admissions made by the applicant to an undercover officer was admissible at the trial.
[2]       The applicant now wishes to argue in this Court that the Court of Appeal’s pre-trial ruling was in error. It can be accepted for present purposes that the ruling concerned a matter which is of public or general importance, but the applicant seeks to bring with it to this Court certain other issues which appear not previously to have been advanced in and considered by the Court of Appeal.
[3]       In these circumstances it is not appropriate that there should be a direct appeal bypassing the Court of Appeal. It is undesirable that this Court should be called upon to determine these other questions without having the benefit of the views of the Court of Appeal upon them, together with its further appraisal of its earlier ruling in the light of the full factual setting of the evidence at trial.
Solicitors:
Burnard Bull & Co, Gisborne for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paul Joseph Cameron applied for leave to appeal his conviction for murder directly to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The applicant had previously been convicted in the High Court of New Zealand, and the Court of Appeal had ruled on the admissibility of certain evidence prior to the trial. Cameron sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's pre-trial ruling on the admissibility of evidence, as well as other issues he believed were not adequately considered by the Court of Appeal. The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the appeal should be allowed to bypass the Court of Appeal and proceed directly to the Supreme Court, and if the additional issues raised by the applicant warranted consideration at that stage. The Supreme Court held that it was not appropriate for the appeal to bypass the Court of Appeal. The court found it undesirable for the Supreme Court to determine the additional questions without the Court of Appeal's views on those issues and its further appraisal of the earlier ruling in light of the full evidence at trial. Consequently, the application for leave to bring a "leapfrog" appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court's reasoning was based on the principle that the Court of Appeal should have the opportunity to review and reconsider its earlier ruling in the context of the full evidence presented at trial. The Supreme Court held that it was not appropriate for the appeal to proceed directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeal. The court emphasised the importance of the Court of Appeal having the chance to provide its views on the additional issues raised by the applicant and to further appraise its earlier ruling in light of the full factual setting of the evidence at trial. As a result, the applicant's appeal was dismissed, and he was not granted leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established