Stoves v The Queen

The appellant, Mr Stoves, was convicted of refusing a request for a blood sample and subsequently sentenced to 250 hours of community work and disqualified from driving for 12 months. Despite his plea of guilty, Mr Stoves appealed to the Court of Appeal against both his conviction and sentence, but his appeal was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand on three grounds, one of which was abandoned during his written submissions.

The grounds upon which Mr Stoves seeks leave to appeal are: first, that the Court of Appeal failed to adequately address the effect of undue delay in hearing the charge; second, that the Court of Appeal failed to adequately consider what the sentence might have been had the delays not occurred; and third, that the Court of Appeal failed to address the effect of the quashing of the earlier conviction and the ordering of a rehearing from the point of view of the continuation of the conviction and sentence that had earlier been imposed. These grounds bear on both conviction and sentence.

The Supreme Court considered these grounds and found that none of them raise any clear issue of law, let alone any issue of law which might be thought to be of general or public importance. The Court also considered whether, in light of all the matters raised by Mr Stoves, a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur if leave to appeal is not granted, but found that this had not been established. The Court concluded that it is not necessary in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal as the proposed appeal does not involve any matter of general or public importance, nor can it reasonably be said that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur unless the appeal is heard.

The Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal and did not consider it necessary to direct an oral hearing of the application. The Court found that Mr Stoves did not satisfy the requirements for leave to appeal under the Supreme Court Act 2003.