Pawel Marian Misiuk v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 83/2011
[2011] NZSC 104

PAWEL MARIAN MISIUK

THE QUEEN

Court: Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ

Counsel: M J Kidd for Applicant
C A Brook for Crown

Judgment: 13 September 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

Mr Misiuk seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal denying him bail[1] pending the hearing of his appeal to that Court against conviction on numerous charges including burglary.
[1] Misiuk v R [2011] NZCA 323.
While this Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed bail appeal,[2] it is not in the interests of justice that it do so. We are not persuaded that it is arguable that the Court of Appeal erred in any respect in declining to grant bail. The substantive hearing in the Court of Appeal is due to take place tomorrow and will be dealt with before a hearing can be held in this Court.
[2] R v Greer [2006] NZSC 76, [2006] 3 NZLR 740.

Solicitors:
The Small Law Firm Ltd, Auckland for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pawel Marian Misiuk v The Queen involves an application for leave to appeal a decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, which had denied the applicant bail pending the hearing of his appeal against his conviction on multiple charges, including burglary. The applicant, represented by M J Kidd, sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand, which was presided over by Justices Blanchard, Tipping, and McGrath. The Crown, represented by C A Brook, opposed the application.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision to deny bail. The Court acknowledged its jurisdiction to hear the bail appeal, but considered whether it was in the interests of justice to do so. The Court needed to determine whether there was an arguable error in the Court of Appeal's decision, and whether it was appropriate to hear the appeal before the substantive appeal hearing could be conducted.

The Court concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision. They were not persuaded that the Court of Appeal had erred in denying bail, given that the substantive appeal hearing was scheduled to take place the following day. The Court considered it more appropriate to wait for the outcome of the substantive appeal hearing before addressing any potential issues with the bail decision.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The substantive appeal hearing proceeded before the Court of Appeal, and the outcome of that hearing will determine the next steps in the case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established