R v Greer

[2004] NZSC 10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC CRI 6/2004

THE QUEEN

v

ALAN IVO GREER

Coram:Elias CJ
Gault J

Counsel:K D O'Brien for Applicant

S P France for Crown

Judgment:9 September 2004 

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1]       Alan Ivo Greer seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on 17 May 2004 dismissing his appeal against conviction and sentence on 12 counts.  They were three counts of receiving, two counts of taking documents with intent to defraud, four drug offences (including possession of a Class B drug for the purposes of supply) and three counts under the Arms Act.  On all counts he had pleaded guilty in the District Court at Palmerston North.  Guilty pleas to nine of the counts were entered on arraignment.  They included the drug charges and the Arms Act offences.  Pleas to the remaining three charges were entered a day into the evidence at trial.  The applicant was sentenced to a total of 3½ years imprisonment.  The Court of Appeal decision was a re-hearing of an earlier ex parte determination.

[2]       Written submissions have been received on behalf of the applicant and the respondent.  We have concluded that it is unnecessary to require oral submissions.

[3]       Four grounds for further appeal are put forward, three entailing challenges to the convictions and one being a challenge to the sentence.

[4]       First it is asserted that the trial Judge wrongly admitted evidence from an unlawful search.  The admission of such evidence is said to amount to a substantial miscarriage of justice.  No basis for these assertions is identified in the submissions.  Nor was any basis for the unlawfulness of the search of the applicant’s home identified in the Court of Appeal.  Evidence was given at the trial of execution of three search warrants at the applicant’s home but no challenge to the evidence was made and no basis upon which the searches could be challenged for unlawfulness has been identified at any stage, including in the present application.

[5]       The second ground sought to be advanced is that police radio communication transcripts and computer data were not fully disclosed to the defence.  It is asserted that such disclosure would have been of benefit to the applicant in his defence “as it may have contributed to creating a reasonable doubt”.  Questions as to disclosure were raised by the applicant before trial and answered by affidavit from the officer in charge.  Some material was provided.  No further steps were taken in relation to any information withheld.  No basis upon which it might be suggested that further disclosure would have affected the guilty pleas or assisted in any defence are identified.

[6]       The third ground raised is that the applicant was advised by his trial counsel to enter pleas of guilty to the nine counts to which he pleaded guilty before trial.  It is asserted that the applicant was trying to protect his co-accused.  These assertions are not supported by any evidence.  The Court of Appeal noted that counsel for the applicant was very experienced senior counsel and that upon the remaining three counts the applicant later entered guilty pleas.

[7]       The final ground of appeal is that the sentence imposed was excessive because the lead sentence of 3½ years for possession of a Class B drug for supply was excessive.  It is said that the sentencing Judge fell into error in adopting a four year starting point.  The cases canvassed in the judgment of the Court of Appeal confirm that the starting point was within the range available to the sentencing Judge.  No issue of sentencing principle is raised.

[8]       None of the points put forward by the applicant raise any issue of general or public importance.  No way in which a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred has been identified.  The merits of the appeal were fully considered on appeal to the Court of Appeal.  No basis upon which it would be proper for this Court to grant leave under s12 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 has been made out.  The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:

K D O’Brien, Wellington for Applicant
Crown Law office, Wellington