Wong v R

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 44/2009
[2009] NZSC 64
ALEX KWONG WONG
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard and Wilson JJ
Counsel:F C Deliu for Applicant

M D Downs for Crown

Judgment:16 June 2009

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
REASONS
[1] Having been convicted at his retrial (ordered by this Court) on charges of importing and possession for supply of methamphetamine of considerable quantity, the applicant, represented by Mr Deliu, now wishes to appeal against the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant him bail pending the hearing of his conviction appeal in the Court of Appeal. There is a fixture for 18 August. The Court of Appeal's approach to the issue of bail was an entirely orthodox approach to the exercise of discretion under s 14 of the Bail Act 2000. It was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it would be in the interests of justice in the particular case to do so. Nothing in counsel's submissions persuades us that the Court of Appeal's exercise of its discretion should be disturbed.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Alex Kwong Wong sought leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision to refuse him bail pending the hearing of his conviction appeal. Wong had been convicted on charges of importing and possessing methamphetamine for supply in considerable quantity, and the Court of Appeal had ordered a retrial. Wong's application for leave to appeal was represented by Mr. F C Deliu, while the Crown was represented by Mr. M D Downs. The Supreme Court issued its judgment on 16 June 2009, dismissing Wong's application for leave to appeal.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal had exercised its discretion under section 14 of the Bail Act 2000 correctly in refusing Wong bail pending the hearing of his appeal. The Court of Appeal had applied an orthodox approach to the exercise of discretion, concluding that it was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that granting bail would be in the interests of justice. The Court of Appeal's reasoning was based on the nature of Wong's convictions and the potential risk he posed to the community. Wong argued that the Court of Appeal's decision should be overturned, but the Supreme Court found no basis to disturb the Court of Appeal's exercise of discretion.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal's approach was entirely orthodox and that it had not erred in exercising its discretion. The Court found that the Court of Appeal had properly considered the relevant factors, including the seriousness of Wong's convictions and the risk he posed if released on bail. The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal's decision was not an error of law and that there was no reason to interfere with its exercise of discretion. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed Wong's application for leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established