Peter Muller v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 104/2010
[2010] NZSC 156

PETER MULLER

THE QUEEN

Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ

Counsel: C J Tennet for Applicant
N P Chisnall for Crown

Judgment: 16 December 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

The Court of Appeal has dismissed Mr Muller’s appeal against his conviction on charges of aggravated burglary, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and kidnapping relating to an attack on the complainant in his home.[1]
[1] Muller v R [2010] NZCA 380 per O’Regan P, Panckhurst and MacKenzie JJ.
The application for leave to appeal was filed well out of time. Even if that is excusable, we are satisfied that leave to appeal should not be given as the criteria in s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 are not met, and by a wide margin.
The first proposed ground was related to the Court of Appeal’s refusal to admit some further evidence said to be of assistance in establishing an alibi for the applicant in relation to the attack on the complainant. The argument made is that trial counsel was in error in not calling this evidence. The Court of Appeal considered, however, that none of the witnesses was able to be sure that the event they said they attended with the applicant had occurred on the night on which the assault took place. The Court of Appeal concluded that the evidence would not have assisted the defence case at trial because it did not actually establish an alibi and that trial counsel, who took the same view, had exercised sound judgment in that respect. Mr Tennet renews in this Court the argument he advanced in the Court of Appeal that the jury should have heard the evidence because it was “a good story”. No counsel can expect a Judge at any level, and certainly not in this Court, to consider the admissibility of evidence on such a basis.
The next proposed point is that an item of identification evidence relating to a co-accused should not have been led at trial. The Court of Appeal agreed, but said that the prejudice was slight and of no moment in the context of the trial. That assessment is plainly correct.
The third proposed ground, that a stay should have been granted, is equally unmeritorious. The Court of Appeal rightly concluded that it is an untenable proposition in view of what this Court has said in R v Williams.[2].
[2] R v Williams [2009] NZSC 41, [2009] 2 NZLR 750.

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Peter Muller v The Queen, which was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand, involved an appeal by Mr Muller against his conviction on several serious charges, including aggravated burglary, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and kidnapping. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed Mr Muller's appeal, and the matter was brought before the Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal. The legal issues before the Supreme Court were primarily whether the Court of Appeal had erred in refusing to admit certain evidence, allowing certain identification evidence to be led, and declining to grant a stay of proceedings. Counsel for the applicant argued that the Court of Appeal had erred in each of these respects and that the criteria for leave to appeal had been met.

The Supreme Court considered each of the proposed grounds for appeal. Regarding the evidence of an alibi, the Court of Appeal had found that the witnesses could not confirm that the events they claimed to have attended with Mr Muller had occurred on the night of the attack. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the evidence would not have assisted the defence case at trial and that trial counsel had exercised sound judgment in not calling it. The Supreme Court further noted that it would not entertain arguments based on the strength of a story without regard to its admissibility. On the issue of the identification evidence, the Court of Appeal had found that any prejudice caused was slight and did not impact the outcome of the trial. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment. Lastly, regarding the proposed stay of proceedings, the Court of Appeal had concluded that it was untenable, and the Supreme Court found no error in this reasoning.

The Supreme Court dismissed Mr Muller's application for leave to appeal, finding that the criteria in section 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 were not met. The Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decisions on each of the points of appeal and found no basis to grant leave to appeal. As a result, Mr Muller's conviction and sentence remain intact.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established