BURNS V R SC 65/2007
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice or a question of general or public importance and the Court of Appeal's conclusion that there was more than adequate evidence (including an alleged admission and properly admitted DNA evidence) stands.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 65/2007
- Parties
- Applicant: Jule Patrick Burns; Respondent: The Queen
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 5 March 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal (murder Conviction) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court (dismissed)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Unreasonable Verdict, Admissibility of DNA Evidence, Leave to Appeal, Miscarriage of Justice, Compulsory DNA Sampling
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jule Patrick Burns
Applicant
The Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (murder Conviction) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court (dismissed)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence
- 2 Whether DNA evidence linking applicant to victim was wrongly admitted
- 3 Whether criteria for leave to appeal under s 13(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 are satisfied
Ratio Decidendi
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice or a question of general or public importance and the Court of Appeal's conclusion that there was more than adequate evidence (including an alleged admission and properly admitted DNA evidence) stands.
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
BURNS V R SC 65/2007 5 March 2008IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 65/2007 [2008] NZSC 13 JULE PATRICK BURNSvTHE QUEENCourt: McGrath, Anderson and Wilson JJ Counsel: D J Taffs for Applicant F E Guy Kidd for Crown Judgment: 5 March 2008JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. REASONS[1] Having unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction on a charge of murder, the applicant seeks leave to appeal to this Court on two grounds. [2] First, the applicant claims, the verdict was unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence. The Court of Appeal concluded however that there was a "more than adequate" evidential basis for the verdict, including an alleged admission by the applicant. The submissions for the applicant simply restate those made to theCourt of Appeal. They go no way to demonstrating that that Court erred in its conclusion. [3] Secondly, the applicant contends that DNA evidence linking him to the victim was wrongly admitted. There are major difficulties in the way of this submission. Defence counsel at trial gave evidence to the Court of Appeal that the applicant had consistently wanted the Police to have a DNA sample from him to clarify whether the prostitute he admitted to having sex with that evening was the deceased. He was able to derive some support from the result of the DNA analysis by portraying himself as co-operating with the Police. [4] Even if the applicant had refused a second sample, after the wrong consent form had been used when the first sample was obtained, the Police would in all probability have obtained a sample compulsorily. [5] In reality, the applicant is asking this Court to entertain a second general appeal. As has been made clear in decisions such as Mankelow v R [2007] NZSC 57, the Court will not do so unless it appears that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, which is not the position here. [6] The application does not raise any question of general or public importance. [7] Having failed to meet any of the criteria prescribed in s 13(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003, the application is therefore dismissed.Solicitors: Crown Law, Wellington