ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.
Counsel: Applicant in person K E Salmond for Crown
Judgment: 7 March 2011
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
Not to be published in news media or on Internet or other publicly accessible database until final disposition of trial.
Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington
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 Wallace v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10
Case
[2011] NZSC 10
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Wallace sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal that dismissed an appeal from a conviction for offences relating to the supply of cocaine. The Supreme Court considered the application for leave to appeal and the issue of whether the publication of the judgment and proceedings should be prohibited. The Court was required to determine whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted and whether there were grounds to prohibit the publication of the judgment and proceedings in the media.
The Court noted that the application for leave to appeal was not likely to succeed and that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the prohibition of publication. The Court held that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed and that there were no grounds for prohibiting the publication of the judgment and proceedings in the media. The Court did, however, prohibit the publication of the judgment and proceedings in the news media or on the internet or other publicly accessible database until the final disposition of the trial. The Court held that the publication of the judgment and proceedings in law reports or law digests was permitted.
The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and did not grant the application to prohibit the publication of the judgment and proceedings in the media. The Court held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the prohibition of publication and that the publication of the judgment and proceedings in law reports or law digests was permitted. The Court did, however, prohibit the publication of the judgment and proceedings in the news media or on the internet or other publicly accessible database until the final disposition of the trial.