MARK STAFFORD FEARY (AKA ALL MEANS ALL) V R SC SC 76/2011
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant's factual complaints were unsupported and speculative, the jury's verdicts were open on the evidence (the applicant admitted sending the letters and a reasonable jury could find intent), the fines were justified given prior warning and continued...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 76/2011
- Parties
- Applicant: Mark Stafford Feary (aka All Means All); Respondent: The Queen
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 19 August 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal — Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court Dismissed
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Threats to Kill, Threats to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm, Leave to Appeal, Appellate Review of Jury Verdicts, Fines
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mark Stafford Feary (aka All Means All)
Applicant
The Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal — Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to proceed in the applicant's absence and on the evidence before it
- 2 Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to convict on counts of threatening to kill and threatening to do grievous bodily harm
- 3 Whether the sentence (fines totalling $20,000) was justified
Ratio Decidendi
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant's factual complaints were unsupported and speculative, the jury's verdicts were open on the evidence (the applicant admitted sending the letters and a reasonable jury could find intent), the fines were justified given prior warning and continued offending, and the statutory/common law criteria for leave were not satisfied.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MARK STAFFORD FEARY (AKA ALL MEANS ALL) V R SC SC 76/2011 19 August 2011IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 76/2011[2011] NZSC 90MARK STAFFORD FEARY (AKA ALL MEANS ALL)vTHE QUEENCourt: Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJCounsel: Applicant in personF Sinclair for CrownJudgment: 19 August 2011JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissedREASONS[1] The applicant complains that the Court of Appeal1 proceeded with its hearing in his absence in circumstances where he had returned to the Court all correspondence in which he was advised of the date of the fixture and of the things that he needed to do in connection with it. The Court considered that he must have opened the letters in question as one of them was not returned in the same envelope in which it had been sent to him. He alleges that in coming to this conclusion the Court has fabricated facts. Notably, however, he does not explain how the matter to which the Court averted could have occurred if the letters were never opened. So1 Feary v R [2011] NZCA 235.what he is actually suggesting is that the Court acted on a basis which its members knew to be untrue. The suggestion is improper and we reject it out of hand.[2] As to the substance of the case: the applicant was convicted of twelve counts of threatening to do grievous bodily harm and two counts of threatening to kill. His actions related to letters sent to a variety of people. He admitted at his trial that he had sent the letters. The issue for the jury was really whether he had meant his words to be taken seriously by those to whom the letters were sent. As the Court of Appeal said,2 it was entirely open to the jury on the evidence to conclude that the essential elements of the charges were established beyond reasonable doubt. A further appeal to this Court on the substance of the matter would have no hope of succeeding. The same can be said about the sentence appeal which relates to fines imposed in a total of $20,000. That sentence was fully justified in circumstances where a police officer had warned the applicant about his behaviour and advised him that it was an offence to threaten to cause grievous bodily harm to a person or to threaten to kill them, and he proceeded to ignore that warning by sending the further letters which were the subject of the charges.[3] The criteria for leave are not met.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington2 At [14].