BENJAMIN v R SC 13/2012

BENJAMIN v R SC 13/2012

Even accepting the fresh evidence, the critical fact that the appellant received $48,365.50, matching the Crown's payslip calculation, is unexplained by the new material; no credible alternative actor or explanation was shown, and the procedural complaints did not establish unfairness, therefore no arguable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SC 13/2012
Parties
Appellant: Mark Joseph Benjamin; Respondent: The Queen
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
23 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal (s 249(1)(a) Crimes Act 1961) Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Accessing Computer System, Dishonesty, Claim of Right, New Evidence, Miscarriage of Justice, Appellate Procedure
Criminal Law Computer Crime Evidence Appeal Procedure Accessing Computer System Dishonesty Claim of Right New Evidence +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Joseph Benjamin

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal (s 249(1)(a) Crimes Act 1961) Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence establishes a substantial miscarriage of justice warranting leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the appellant dishonestly accessed the payroll computer system to obtain a pecuniary advantage contrary to s 249(1)(a) Crimes Act 1961
  3. 3 Whether procedural time constraints in the Court of Appeal caused unfairness to the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

Even accepting the fresh evidence, the critical fact that the appellant received $48,365.50, matching the Crown's payslip calculation, is unexplained by the new material; no credible alternative actor or explanation was shown, and the procedural complaints did not establish unfairness, therefore no arguable substantial miscarriage of justice exists and leave is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed