JOSEPH KARAITIANA WHEELER v R [2022] NZSC 129
The application for direct leave to appeal did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances under s75(b) Senior Courts Act 2016, the issue had not been considered by the Court of Appeal so the Supreme Court would not benefit from that Court's views, and the argument can be advanced in the Van Hemert appeal; therefore...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] NZSC 129
- Parties
- Applicant: JOSEPH KARAITIANA WHEELER; Respondent: The King
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 10 November 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal; Extension Dismissed and Leave Not Granted
- Outcome
- Application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal dismissed; no leave to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Life Imprisonment, Minimum Period of Imprisonment, Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Manifestly Unjust
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
JOSEPH KARAITIANA WHEELER
Applicant
The King
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal; Extension Dismissed and Leave Not Granted
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court should grant direct leave to appeal (exceptional circumstances)
- 2 Whether the sentencing Judge erred in law in treating a 10 year MPI as not manifestly unjust given personal mitigation
- 3 Whether an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal should be granted
Ratio Decidendi
The application for direct leave to appeal did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances under s75(b) Senior Courts Act 2016, the issue had not been considered by the Court of Appeal so the Supreme Court would not benefit from that Court's views, and the argument can be advanced in the Van Hemert appeal; therefore leave and the extension of time were refused.
Court Disposition
Application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal dismissed; no leave to appeal granted
Orders
- The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed
- No leave to appeal is granted
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JOSEPH KARAITIANA WHEELER v R [2022] NZSC 129 [10 November 2022]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROASC 104/2022[2022] NZSC 129BETWEEN JOSEPH KARAITIANA WHEELERApplicantAND THE KINGRespondentCourt: Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJCounsel: D A Ewen and E T Blincoe for ApplicantM J Lillico for RespondentJudgment: 10 November 2022JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appealis dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] Mr Wheeler pleaded guilty to murder following a sentencing indication. Hewas sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of10 years.1 The sentencing Judge rejected the argument for Mr Wheeler that lifeimprisonment would be manifestly unjust. In doing so, the Court did not accept thesubmission that an MPI of 10 years would be longer than necessary becauseMr Wheeler's personal mitigating circumstances (including drug abuse and mentalhealth issues) would usually result in various discounts and, as the 10 year MPI wouldbe unjust, a life sentence could not be just.1 R v Wheeler [2022] NZHC 2151 (Ellis J).[2] Mr Wheeler has applied for leave to appeal directly to this Court from thedecision of the High Court.[3] On the proposed appeal, Mr Wheeler wishes to reprise the argument he madein the High Court about the approach to imposing a finite sentence. He also says thatif leave is granted, his appeal should be heard along with that of Van Hemert v R whichis to be heard on 18 November 2022. It is anticipated that one of the interveners inthat appeal, Te Matakahi | Defence Lawyers Association New Zealand, will advancesimilar submissions to those Mr Wheeler wishes to argue.[4] We accept the submission for the respondent that it has not been shown thatthere are exceptional circumstances that justify taking the proposed appeal directly tothis Court.2 The issue has not been raised in the Court of Appeal so this Court wouldnot have the benefit of that Court's views on Mr Wheeler's case and the argument canbe made in Mr Van Hemert's appeal in any event.[5] Given our conclusion that the application for leave to appeal does not meet theleave criteria in the Senior Courts Act 2016, there is no utility in granting an extensionof time to make an application for leave to appeal. We therefore dismiss theapplication for an extension of time.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent2 Senior Courts Act 2016, s 75(b).