Van Wakeren v R

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 113/2011
[2011] NZSC 147

RONALD VAN WAKEREN

THE QUEEN

Court: Blanchard, McGrath and William Young JJ

Counsel: Applicant in person
A Markham for Crown

Judgment: 5 December 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

The applicant is a career criminal with over 200 previous convictions. He is seeking leave to appeal against an aggregate sentence of 12 years, 3 months with an aggregate minimum term of imprisonment of six years imposed by way of cumulative penalties in respect of 70 burglary and dishonesty offences. These involved six episodes of offending, including the burglary of the National Army Museum in which medals of national significance valued at more than $5 million were taken.
The applicant makes a large number of unconvincing criticisms of the Court of Appeal judgment. The sentences imposed in the District Court were carefully reviewed and, where necessary, adjusted by the Court of Appeal.[1] The applicant is seeking in essence a further review by this Court. In the absence of any arguable question of principle or any appearance of a substantial miscarriage of justice in the way in which the total sentence or the total minimum term of imprisonment has been set, it is not in the interests of justice that there should be a further appeal to this Court. The sentences were well merited. The criteria for leave are not met.
[1] Van Wakeren v R [2011] NZCA 503.

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Ronald van Wakeren appealed against his aggregate sentence of 12 years and 3 months for 70 burglary and dishonesty offences, including the burglary of the National Army Museum. The case was heard by Blanchard, McGrath, and William Young JJ, with the applicant representing himself and the Crown represented by A Markham. The judgment was delivered on 5 December 2011, dismissing the application for leave to appeal.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the aggregate sentence imposed was appropriate and whether there was an arguable question of principle or a substantial miscarriage of justice that warranted further review by the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal had already reviewed and adjusted the sentences where necessary, and the applicant sought an additional review. The Supreme Court needed to determine if the criteria for leave to appeal were met, particularly in the absence of any significant legal or justice issues.

The Supreme Court found that the District Court's sentences had been carefully reviewed by the Court of Appeal, and any adjustments made were justified. The Court held that there was no arguable question of principle or substantial miscarriage of justice. The sentences were deemed well-merited, and therefore, it was not in the interests of justice to allow a further appeal to the Supreme Court. The criteria for leave to appeal were not satisfied, leading to the dismissal of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established