ANARU MORGAN v R [2022] NZSC 49

The Supreme Court refused the stay because, given the imminent sentencing date and absence of sufficient grounds to justify interim relief, the balance of convenience did not support granting a stay.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2022] NZSC 49
Parties: Applicant: Anaru Morgan; Respondent: The Queen
Court: Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Zealand
Judgment Date: 12 April 2022
Procedural Posture: Criminal Stay Application / Application for Stay of Sentencing Before Supreme Court
Outcome: Application for a stay of sentencing refused
Legal Topics: Stay of Sentencing, Interlocutory Relief, Timing and Proximity to Sentencing

Criminal Law Appellate Procedure Sentencing Interim Relief Stay of Sentencing Interlocutory Relief Timing and Proximity to Sentencing

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Anaru Morgan

Applicant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Stay Application / Application for Stay of Sentencing Before Supreme Court

Legal Issues

1 Whether a stay of the applicant's sentencing scheduled for 13 April 2022 should be granted
2 Whether the applicant established sufficient grounds (serious issue to be tried and balance of convenience) to justify interim relief given the proximity of sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court refused the stay because, given the imminent sentencing date and absence of sufficient grounds to justify interim relief, the balance of convenience did not support granting a stay.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay of sentencing refused

Orders

Application for a stay of the sentencing of the applicant on 13 April 2022 is refused

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.