W and M v The Queen

W and M appealed against a decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The nature of the dispute was an appeal against a decision related to the applicants' convictions, and the matter was heard by Justices Blanchard, William Young, and Chambers. The applicants sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's decision on points of law and procedure.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the applicants had a right to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision, and if so, whether the Court should grant leave to appeal. The applicants argued that there were errors in the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the law and procedure, which warranted an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the Court of Appeal's decision was correct and that there was no basis for granting leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court considered the arguments put forward by both parties and found that there was no sufficient ground for the applicants to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision. The Court held that the applicants had not demonstrated any error in the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the law or procedure that would warrant an appeal to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal.