Ratima O'Donnell v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 86/2010
[2010] NZSC 134
RATIMA JAMES O'DONNELL AKA RATIMA JOSEPH OSBORNE
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Elias CJ, McGrath and William Young JJ
Counsel:Applicant in person

H W Ebersohn for Crown

Judgment:10 November 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]        On 27 May 2002 the applicant pleaded guilty to the murder of Jason Johnson. In 2008 he sought and obtained an extension of time for an appeal to the Court of Appeal. On 16 August 2010, however, that Court dismissed the appeal.
[2]        The applicant’s argument in the Court of Appeal was based on his contention that he had entered his guilty plea mistakenly. The Court had the advantage of hearing evidence from both the applicant and counsel who appeared for him in the High Court. It dismissed the appeal because it concluded that the applicant’s account of how he came to plead guilty was not true.
[3]        There is no appearance of a miscarriage of justice and the proposed appeal has no prospects of success. All in all, we are satisfied that it is not necessary in the interests of justice for this Court to hear and determine the appeal.
[4]        Given our conclusions, there is no reason to appoint an amicus, as suggested by the applicant.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

The Supreme Court of New Zealand dealt with an appeal by Ratima James O'Donnell against a decision of the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed his appeal against his conviction for the murder of Jason Johnson. O'Donnell had previously pleaded guilty to the murder in 2002 and subsequently sought an extension of time to appeal, which was granted. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in 2010, concluding that O'Donnell's claim that he had entered his guilty plea mistakenly was not credible. The Supreme Court, in turn, dismissed O'Donnell's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, finding that there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice and that the proposed appeal had no prospects of success. The Supreme Court was satisfied that it was not necessary in the interests of justice to hear and determine the appeal.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether O'Donnell's claim that he had entered his guilty plea mistakenly was credible. This involved assessing the evidence presented by O'Donnell and his counsel in the Court of Appeal to determine the truth of O'Donnell's account of the events leading to his guilty plea. The Court of Appeal had already considered this issue and concluded that O'Donnell's account was not credible. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, accepted the Court of Appeal's conclusion on this point, finding that there was no basis to question the Court of Appeal's assessment of the evidence.

The reasoning of the Supreme Court was that it was not satisfied that there was any reason to doubt the Court of Appeal's assessment of the evidence. The Court of Appeal had heard evidence from both O'Donnell and his counsel, and had concluded that O'Donnell's account of how he came to plead guilty was not true. The Supreme Court found that there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice and that the proposed appeal had no prospects of success. The Court was satisfied that it was not necessary in the interests of justice to hear and determine the appeal. This conclusion was reinforced by the absence of any reason to appoint an amicus, as suggested by O'Donnell.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. This meant that O'Donnell's appeal against his conviction for the murder of Jason Johnson was effectively concluded, and that he was not permitted to appeal further to the Supreme Court. The Court's decision was based on its conclusion that there was no reason to doubt the Court of Appeal's assessment of the evidence, and that the proposed appeal had no prospects of success. The Court's decision was final, and O'Donnell was not permitted to appeal further to any other court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established