NOBLE V R SC 108/2009
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal properly exercised its discretion in refusing to admit further evidence: the proposed evidence was not found to be sufficiently credible and the established Bain approach remains authoritative and consistent with other jurisdictions.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 108/2009
- Parties
- Applicant: Dean Carleo Cicone Noble; Respondent: The Queen
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 16 July 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Credibility Assessment, Leave to Appeal, Timeliness of Evidence
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dean Carleo Cicone Noble
Applicant
The Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to admit affidavit evidence from other prisoners on appeal
- 2 Whether the approach in R v Bain to admission of further evidence on appeal is outdated
- 3 Whether unsigned and late material should be received by the Supreme Court
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal properly exercised its discretion in refusing to admit further evidence: the proposed evidence was not found to be sufficiently credible and the established Bain approach remains authoritative and consistent with other jurisdictions.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- Unsigned document tendered by applicant declined and not received.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
NOBLE V R SC 108/2009 16 July 2010IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 108/2009 [2010] NZSC 85 DEAN CARLEO CICONE NOBLEvTHE QUEENCourt: Elias CJ, Blanchard and McGrath JJ Counsel: B J Hart for Applicant M D Downs for Crown Judgment: 16 July 2010JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed. REASONS[1] The applicant was convicted on charges of sexually violating a fellow prisoner in Paparoa Prison. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal: R v Noble1 . Affidavit evidence from two other prisoners was sought to be admitted. The deponents said that the complainant had made statements to them to the effect that he had not been violated by the applicant. The Court of Appeal heard these witnesses cross-examined. It did not believe their evidence, for the reasons it gave. It declined to admit that evidence.1 R v Noble [2009] NZCA 507.[2] The proposed ground for a further appeal to this Court is that the Court of Appeal should have admitted the evidence of the other prisoners. Counsel for the applicant submits that the approach to the admission of further evidence on appeal followed by the Court of Appeal, based on R v Bain2 , although approved by the Privy Council in Bain v R3 , is outdated. Counsel urges a different approach. We are unpersuaded by this argument, noting that the Bain approach is consistent with that followed in comparable jurisdictions.4 Furthermore, it is inconceivable that on any basis an appellate court would be obliged to receive evidence which it did not find to be sufficiently credible, as was the case here. [3] Counsel has tendered an unsigned document said to be a statement taken from a third prisoner. We decline to receive it, noting that the application to this Court was made as long ago as 20 November 2009 and that the applicant has been given numerous extensions of time for the filing of submissions and supporting material.Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington2 R v Bain [2004] 1 NZLR 638 (CA) at [22]–[24].3 Bain v R (2007) 23 CRNZ 71 (PC).4 Gallagher v R (1986) 160 CLR 392, Palmer v R [1980] 1 SCR 759 and Pendleton v R [2002] 1 WLR 72 (HL).