Y v The Queen

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 79/2012
[2012] NZSC 111

Y (SC79/2012)

THE QUEEN

Court: Elias CJ, McGrath and Chambers JJ

Counsel: M M Wilkinson-Smith for Applicant
M D Downs for Crown

Judgment: 20 December 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

The applicant, during the course of his trial, applied successfully for a discharge under s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961. The Crown successfully appealed using the case stated procedure prescribed by s 381A of the Crimes Act 1961. The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.[1] The applicant has sought leave to appeal.
[1] R v Y (CA321/2012) [2012] NZCA 458.
We have considerable reservations as to whether we have jurisdiction to entertain an application for leave to appeal from a decision given under ss 381A and 382. Even if we have, however, we are not satisfied it is in the interests of justice to hear the proposed appeal at this stage. A new trial is scheduled for next month. We consider the interests of justice lie in favour of that trial continuing. The applicant may be acquitted. If the applicant is convicted at his new trial, then he will have rights of appeal and the case may eventually find its way to this Court by that conventional route. If it did, we would have a firm factual base from which to analyse the legal position.
We dismiss the application for leave to appeal.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington, for Applicant

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Y v The Queen was heard by Elias CJ, McGrath, and Chambers JJ. The applicant, Y, had been granted a discharge under section 347 of the Crimes Act 1961 during his trial. The Crown subsequently appealed this decision using the case stated procedure prescribed by section 381A of the Crimes Act 1961. The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for Y. The applicant then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The central legal issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a decision made under sections 381A and 382 of the Crimes Act 1961, and whether it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the appeal at that stage.

The Supreme Court expressed significant reservations about its jurisdiction to entertain the application for leave to appeal from a decision given under sections 381A and 382 of the Crimes Act 1961. However, even if the Court had such jurisdiction, it concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to hear the proposed appeal at that stage. A new trial was scheduled for the following month, and the Court considered that the interests of justice lay in allowing that trial to proceed. The applicant could potentially be acquitted at the new trial, and if convicted, he would have rights of appeal, which might eventually bring the case back to the Supreme Court through the conventional route. The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, noting that if the case reached the Court again, it would have a firm factual base from which to analyze the legal position.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were to dismiss the application for leave to appeal, leaving the new trial to proceed as scheduled. This decision underscores the importance of allowing the judicial process to unfold through its conventional stages, especially when a new trial is imminent, to ensure that any subsequent appeal has a solid foundation of facts.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established