Terry v The Queen

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Robert Frank Terry v The Queen was heard and determined by Elias CJ and Tipping J on 23 June 2005. The appellant, Robert Frank Terry, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence, which were imposed by the High Court of New Zealand. The legal issues presented to the Supreme Court were whether any of the points raised by the appellant warranted the granting of leave to appeal, considering their potential impact on matters of general or public importance or the possibility of a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court was required to determine if the appellant's application met the criteria for leave to appeal under section 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.

Upon examining the appellant's points, the Supreme Court found that none of them involved any matter of general or public importance, nor did they suggest that a substantial miscarriage of justice might have occurred or may occur unless leave to appeal was granted. Consequently, the Court concluded that it was not necessary in the interests of justice to hear and determine the proposed appeal. The Court's decision was based on the lack of merit in the appellant's application, which did not meet the stringent criteria for leave to appeal under the Supreme Court Act 2003.

The Supreme Court, therefore, dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal. The Court confirmed that none of the points raised by the appellant warranted the granting of leave to appeal, and the decision of the High Court of New Zealand remained undisturbed. As a result, the appellant's conviction and sentence, as imposed by the High Court, were upheld by the Supreme Court.