Wallace v R

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 35/2012
[2012] NZSC 54

JAY MAUI WALLACE

THE QUEEN

Court: Tipping, McGrath and William Young JJ

Counsel: Applicant in Person
J E Mildenhall for Crown

Judgment: 11 July 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant was convicted following a jury trial on charges of injuring with intent, threatening to kill, assault with intent to injure, unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of explosives. The victim of the violent offending was his partner. He was sentenced to 5 years three months imprisonment.[1] His appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.[2]
[1] R v Wallace HC Auckland CRI-2010-092-2879, 30 June 2011.
[2] Wallace v R [2012] NZCA 139.
The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment to this Court.
Neither the application for leave to appeal, nor the applicant’s submissions, raise a ground of appeal or otherwise relevantly address the circumstances of the applicant’s conviction or sentence. Rather, they raise questions of the jurisdiction of the trial and appellate Courts which have determined and affirmed his guilt. The jurisdiction questions have already been addressed by the applicant in the course of the pre-trial process and have been rejected.
There is nothing in what has been put to us that indicates that it is arguable that a substantial miscarriage of justice will arise in this case unless the Court gives leave to appeal, or that for any other reason the interests of justice test for an appeal to this Court is met.
The application is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jay Maui Wallace filed an application for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Wallace had been convicted by a jury trial on charges of injuring with intent, threatening to kill, assault with intent to injure, unlawful possession of a firearm, and possession of explosives. The victim was his partner. Wallace was sentenced to five years and three months imprisonment, a sentence which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, but did not raise any grounds of appeal or address the circumstances of his conviction or sentence. Instead, he raised questions about the jurisdiction of the trial and appellate courts, issues that had already been rejected during the pre-trial process. The Supreme Court found that there was no indication that a substantial miscarriage of justice would occur if leave to appeal was not granted, and therefore dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether to grant Wallace leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The Court considered whether the applicant had raised any arguable grounds for appeal or otherwise demonstrated that the interests of justice required the grant of leave. The Court noted that Wallace's application did not address the circumstances of his conviction or sentence, but instead focused on questions of jurisdiction that had already been rejected. The Court concluded that there was no indication that a substantial miscarriage of justice would occur if leave to appeal was not granted, and therefore dismissed the application. The Court found that the application did not meet the threshold for leave to appeal, and that there was no other reason to grant leave in the interests of justice.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established