Robinson v The Queen

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Philip Noel Robinson was heard by Glazebrook, Hammond, and Chambers JJ. Philip Robinson was found guilty of cultivating cannabis by a jury, and the trial judge fined him $750 plus costs. Robinson appealed against his conviction and sentence on several grounds, which the Court considered on the papers. The main issues on appeal were whether the trial judge should have appointed an amicus curiae, whether a certain document called "The Report" should have been admitted as evidence, whether the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 was just and should have been left to the jury to decide, and whether the fine and costs were appropriate.

The Court dismissed Robinson's arguments. The application for an amicus curiae was properly rejected because the proposed amicus was not a New Zealand lawyer, amici are rarely appointed in criminal trials, and the proposed amicus was not disinterested and wanted to be paid for his services. The Report was correctly ruled inadmissible because it was irrelevant to the issues the jury had to decide, and even if it was expert evidence, Robinson would have had to call the author as a witness. The Court held that the courts were not the appropriate forum for Robinson's campaign against the cannabis law, and the jury had to apply the law of New Zealand as enacted by Parliament. Finally, the Court held that the fine and costs were within the sentencing judge's discretion and in accordance with the law.

The Court dismissed the appeal and ordered Robinson to pay costs to the Crown in the sum of $750. This case showed that the appeal had no prospect of success, and Robinson should have known that the Court was not the appropriate forum for his arguments. The Court considered that this case came within section 8(5) of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, which allows the Court to order the appellant to pay costs if the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.