SOMERVILLE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZCA 499
Leave to bring a second appeal was refused because the applicant's allegations did not establish a miscarriage of justice nor raise a matter of general or public importance, and there was ample evidence to support the conviction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] NZCA 499
- Parties
- Applicant: Carol Tui Somerville; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 22 October 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal (application for Leave to Bring a Second Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal (dismissed)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Assault, Spitting, Leave to Appeal, Miscarriage of Justice, Witness Credibility
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Carol Tui Somerville
Applicant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (application for Leave to Bring a Second Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal (dismissed)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave should be granted for a second appeal
- 2 Whether the alleged errors amount to a miscarriage of justice
- 3 Whether the matter raises an issue of general or public importance
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to bring a second appeal was refused because the applicant's allegations did not establish a miscarriage of justice nor raise a matter of general or public importance, and there was ample evidence to support the conviction.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SOMERVILLE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZCA 499 [22 October 2015]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA398/2015[2015] NZCA 499BETWEEN CAROL TUI SOMERVILLEApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentCourt: Miller, Heath and Lang JJCounsel: Applicant in PersonJ E L Carruthers for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)22 October 2015 at 10:00 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Miller J)[1] Ms Somerville seeks leave to bring a second appeal against her conviction in the District Court on one charge of assault.1[2] The allegation was that she spat at a young man who she thought had been talking rudely about her with his friend. She admitted following them and confronting them at a mall but denied spitting. The prosecution called the victim, his friend, and a painter who intervened in the incident. All three said they saw her spit1 New Zealand Police v [Somerville] DC Christchurch CRI-2014-009-008726, 11 November 2014.at the victim. Ms Somerville gave evidence in which she accepted that she had followed the victim and his friend and confronted them.[3] Dunningham J dismissed an appeal against conviction, holding relevantly that there was ample evidence on which the Judge was entitled to find that the act of spitting had occurred as alleged.2[4] Ms Somerville says that there has been a miscarriage of justice and that the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance because the public should know that trials are fair and just. She refers to various particulars of the evidence in support of a contention that the witnesses for the prosecution were not credible.[5] None of these allegations are matters of general or public importance, and we do not accept that they give rise to a miscarriage of justice.3[6] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent2 Somerville v New Zealand Police [2015] NZHC 771.3 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 237.