The Queen v Le Page - [2005] NZCA 67

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA297/04
CA411/04
CA495/04
THE QUEEN
v
ANTON MARK LE PAGE
Hearing:13 April 2005

Court:McGrath, Williams and Panckhurst JJ
Counsel:P S Neutze for Appellant

K J Glubb for Crown

Judgment:28 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal against conviction (following entry of pleas of guilty) is

refused.
BThe appeal is dismissed.

REASONS
(Given by Panckhurst J)
INTRODUCTION
[1]       The appellant seeks to appeal against his conviction upon a number of drugs charges, despite the circumstance that he entered pleas of guilty to those charges on arraignment in the High Court and has been sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment in relation to them. The first question is whether an appeal against conviction can lie in these circumstances. That question may be of some practical moment since it is apparent from the history of this case that the pleas of guilty were entered by the appellant when he and his advisors laboured under the misapprehension that thereby he would not be inhibited in pursuing an appeal against conviction to this Court.
[2]       The genesis of the guilty pleas was a s344A ruling of Priestley J in which he ruled admissible evidence of a search of a vehicle driven by the appellant. Such search led to the discovery of controlled drugs and, ultimately, to the preferment of an indictment containing the seven counts to which Mr Le Page pleaded guilty. He desired to challenge the s344A ruling, but an appeal was not pursued before trial pursuant to s379A(aa), nor was application made to reserve a question of law pursuant to s380, before entry of the pleas. The most which can be said is that the record confirms Mr Le Page entered the guilty pleas under the misapprehension that he still enjoyed an unqualified right of appeal against conviction.
The history of the case
[3]       On 4 July 2003 at Auckland Mr Le Page was stopped by police officers and his vehicle was searched pursuant to s202B of the Crimes Act 1961 on the basis reasonable grounds existed for the belief that his vehicle contained an offensive weapon. The discovery of ecstasy tablets and methamphetamine in a bag in the vehicle stimulated further police inquiries. In the end result Mr Le Page was charged with possession of methamphetamine and MDMA (ecstasy) for the purpose of supply, supplying controlled drugs to persons unknown, using a vehicle for the purposes of the commission of a drug offence, possession of a methamphetamine pipe, and two charges of possession of offensive weapons.
[4]       Over four days in June 2004 Priestley J heard a s344A application in which the Crown sought a ruling as to the admissibility of evidence of the initial search for offensive weapons at the roadside on 4 July 2003. Three police officers involved in the search gave evidence and were extensively cross-examined. Mr Le Page did likewise. On 30 June 2004 Priestley J delivered a decision in which he concluded that the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading The Queen v Le Page

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Le Page [2005] NZCA 67
Case: [2005] NZCA 67
Decision Date: 28 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Anton Mark Le Page sought to appeal his conviction on various drug charges despite entering guilty pleas at arraignment in the High Court. He was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal had to decide whether an appeal against conviction was permissible under these circumstances, considering the practical implications given that Le Page and his advisors believed an appeal against conviction was still possible. The court also examined whether the guilty pleas were entered under a misapprehension about the admissibility ruling, which concerned the search of a vehicle driven by Le Page that led to the discovery of controlled drugs.

The court reasoned that an appeal against conviction following a guilty plea is only entertained in exceptional circumstances, such as when a miscarriage of justice will result if the conviction is not overturned. The court identified three broad situations where an appeal might lie: where the appellant did not appreciate the nature of the charge, where on admitted facts the appellant could not have been lawfully convicted, or where the plea was induced by a ruling that embodied a wrong decision on a question of law. The court found that none of these situations applied to Le Page's case. The admissibility ruling did not leave Le Page with no legal escape from guilty verdicts; it merely diminished his chances of successfully defending the charges.

The court also considered the admissibility ruling itself, examining whether the police had reasonable grounds to believe the vehicle contained an offensive weapon, which would justify the search under the Crimes Act. The court concluded that the police had reasonable cause and that the baton found in the vehicle was indeed an offensive weapon. Therefore, the search was lawful and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders