BROOKING V R SC 16/2005
The application for leave was dismissed because the appeal raised no question of principle and there was no appearance of miscarriage of justice, and the Court of Appeal was entitled to increase the sentence on the Solicitor‑General's appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 16/2005
- Parties
- Applicant: Benjamin Turrei Brooking; Respondent: The Queen
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 31 May 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Residential Burglary, Aggravated Assault, Assault on a Female, Recidivism, Sentence Increase, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Benjamin Turrei Brooking
Applicant
The Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in increasing the sentence
- 3 Whether the case raised a question of principle
Ratio Decidendi
The application for leave was dismissed because the appeal raised no question of principle and there was no appearance of miscarriage of justice, and the Court of Appeal was entitled to increase the sentence on the Solicitor‑General's appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
BROOKING V R SC 16/2005 31 May 2005IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 16/2005 [2005] NZSC 28 BENJAMIN TURREI BROOKINGvTHE QUEENCourt: Gault J and Blanchard J Counsel: V C Nisbet for Applicant N M Crutchley for Respondent Judgment: 31 May 2005JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. REASONS[1] The application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal increasing a sentence of imprisonment from six years to eight years nine months for a series of residential burglaries and other offending, including aggravated assault and assault on a female, committed by a recidivist offender raises no question of principle nor is there any appearance of a miscarriage of justice in the substituted sentence. It was open to the Court of Appeal to increase the sentence as it did on an appeal by the Solicitor-General in accordance with normal principles.[2] The application is without merit and must be refused.Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington