Vohra v The Queen

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was tasked with determining the identity of the applicable first appeal court in two appeals, one brought by Manoj Vohra and the other by Miles John McKelvy. Both appellants contested the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision in Jackson v R. Vohra sought to appeal his conviction and sentence for male assaults female, arguing that he should have been discharged without conviction. McKelvy sought to appeal against his sentence, which was five years and two months' imprisonment for drug-related charges. The legal issues revolved around the interpretation of sections 230 and 247 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which define the first appeal courts for appeals against conviction and sentence, respectively.

The court examined whether an election on other charges in the same proceeding, which are not the subject of the appeal, dictates appeal pathways for a charge on which no election was entered. In Vohra's case, the court found that the High Court is the correct first appeal court for the appeal against conviction and sentence in respect of Charge 1. For McKelvy, the court held that the Court of Appeal is the correct first appeal court because McKelvy elected jury trial, pleaded guilty prior to trial, and the sentence appealed against is a sentence of imprisonment exceeding five years. The court noted that the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act through the Courts Matters Bill would reverse the effect of Jackson v R, but the current appeals did not require a re-evaluation of Jackson.

In conclusion, the court dismissed Vohra's appeal for want of jurisdiction, affirming that the High Court is the correct first appeal court. For McKelvy, the court found that the Court of Appeal is the correct first appeal court, and his appeal should be set down for hearing.