PEARSON v R SC 125/2011
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show that the Court of Appeal's conclusion — that there were insufficient grounds to interview a juror under s 76 Evidence Act 2006 — could give rise to a miscarriage of justice or that any other ground for granting leave existed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 125/2011
- Parties
- Appellant: Mark Terence Pearson; Respondent: The Queen
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 27 April 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Rape, Juror Interview, Section 76 Evidence Act 2006, Miscarriage of Justice, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mark Terence Pearson
Appellant
The Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding there were insufficient grounds to interview a juror and obtain that juror's evidence under s 76 Evidence Act 2006
- 2 Whether the failure to permit a juror interview could give rise to a miscarriage of justice warranting leave to appeal
- 3 Whether any other ground for leave to appeal has been established
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show that the Court of Appeal's conclusion — that there were insufficient grounds to interview a juror under s 76 Evidence Act 2006 — could give rise to a miscarriage of justice or that any other ground for granting leave existed.
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
PEARSON v R SC 125/2011 [27 April 2012]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 125/2011[2012] NZSC 31MARK TERENCE PEARSONvTHE QUEENCourt: Blanchard, Tipping and William Young JJJudgment: 27 April 2012JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.REASONS[1] Mr Pearson seeks leave to appeal against his conviction for sexual violation by rape which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. His counsel has withdrawn and he has not himself filed any submissions after having been given the opportunity to do so. We have nevertheless considered the matters raised in the application for leave.[2] The primary issue concerns the Court of Appeal's conclusion that insufficient grounds had been shown to justify interviewing a juror and obtaining that person'sevidence under s 76 of the Evidence Act 2006. Nothing raised in the application for leave persuades us that a miscarriage of justice might arise if leave to appeal is not given. Nor are we satisfied that any other ground for leave to appeal has been established. The application is accordingly dismissed.