GORGUS v R [2020] NZCA 46
Leave to appeal was declined because jurisdiction under s217 to entertain pre-trial admissibility appeals ended when the defendant pleaded guilty; the admissibility issue was rendered irrelevant by the plea and the defendant's only available remedies were to seek to vacate the plea or to appeal under s229, each...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZCA 46
- Parties
- Applicant: Ashor Gorgus; Respondent: The Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 10 March 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal Against Pre Trial Ruling / Application for Leave to Appeal After Guilty Plea
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal declined
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence Pre Trial, Pre Trial Ruling Under S217, Effect of Guilty Plea on Jurisdiction, Remedies: Vacating Plea and S229 Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ashor Gorgus
Applicant
The Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Pre Trial Ruling / Application for Leave to Appeal After Guilty Plea
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal retains jurisdiction under s217 to hear a pre-trial admissibility appeal after the defendant has pleaded guilty
- 2 Whether the pre-trial admissibility ruling remains relevant once a guilty plea is entered
- 3 What procedural routes remain available to challenge liability after a guilty plea
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was declined because jurisdiction under s217 to entertain pre-trial admissibility appeals ended when the defendant pleaded guilty; the admissibility issue was rendered irrelevant by the plea and the defendant's only available remedies were to seek to vacate the plea or to appeal under s229, each requiring explanation of the plea.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal declined
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal declined
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
GORGUS v R [2020] NZCA 46 [10 March 2020]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA656/2019[2020] NZCA 46BETWEEN ASHOR GORGUSApplicantAND THE QUEENRespondentHearing: 3 March 2020Court: Collins, Simon France and Lang JJCounsel: Applicant in personD G Johnstone for RespondentR M Mansfield as standby counsel appointed to assist the CourtJudgment: 10 March 2020 at 4.00 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Lang J)[1] Mr Gorgus faced a charge of theft in the District Court. He elected trial by juryand lodged a pre-trial application challenging the admissibility of aspects of theevidence the Crown proposed to adduce at trial.[2] In a pre-trial ruling delivered on 12 December 2019, Judge Taumaunu held theevidence was admissible.1 Mr Gorgus then lodged an appeal against that ruling unders 217 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act).[3] On 23 December 2019, Mr Gorgus entered a guilty plea to the charge. Counseladvise us that he was sentenced on the same date. Notwithstanding that fact, he seeksto maintain his appeal against the Judge's pre-trial ruling.Jurisdiction[4] As we endeavoured to explain to Mr Gorgus during the hearing, there is nolonger any jurisdiction for this Court to consider his appeal.[5] Where a defendant has elected trial by jury, s 217(2)(b) of the Act permits boththe defendant and the Crown to seek leave to appeal pre-trial rulings as to theadmissibility of evidence. Once Mr Gorgus entered his guilty plea and was convicted,however, the pre-trial phase ended. The admissibility issue he had raised ceased tohave any relevance at that point because he acknowledged his guilt through his plea.Thereafter only two options were open to him to contest his liability under the charge.The first was by way of application to the District Court to vacate his guilty plea. Thesecond was by way of appeal against conviction to this Court under s 229 of the Act.Under either route, however, Mr Gorgus would need to provide evidence explainingwhy he entered his guilty plea.[6] We are therefore satisfied this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the presentapplication. It is accordingly declined.Solicitors:Crown Solicitor, Auckland for Respondent1 R v Gorgus [2019] NZDC 24941.