MICHAEL MARINO v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZSC 52
Leave to appeal was granted because the appeal raises a question of law of public importance concerning the interpretation and application of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002 and because related issues are before the Court in Booth v R, warranting coordinated hearing.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] NZSC 52
- Parties
- Applicant: Michael Marino; Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 6 May 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Granted; Appeal to Be Set Down for Hearing
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; approved question of law; appeal to be heard alongside Booth v R
- Legal Topics
- Interpretation of Ss 90 and 91 Parole Act 2002, Application of Parole Provisions to Sentencing, Mootness of Appeal, Case Management and Hearing Scheduling
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michael Marino
Applicant
The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Granted; Appeal to Be Set Down for Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in the application of those sections to the applicant
- 3 Whether the appeal is moot given the applicant will have completed his prison term before hearing
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted because the appeal raises a question of law of public importance concerning the interpretation and application of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002 and because related issues are before the Court in Booth v R, warranting coordinated hearing.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; approved question of law; appeal to be heard alongside Booth v R
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted
- Approved question: Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002 or in the application of those sections to the position of the applicant?
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MICHAEL MARINO v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZSC 52 [6 May 2016]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 35/2016[2016] NZSC 52BETWEEN MICHAEL MARINOApplicantAND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentCourt: Elias CJ, William Young and O'Regan JJCounsel: D A Ewen and G K Edgeler for ApplicantD J Perkins and T P Westaway for RespondentJudgment: 6 May 2016JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA Leave to appeal is granted (Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 133).B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002 or in the application of those sections to the position of the applicant?____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The Court has granted leave to appeal in another case which touches on the issue raised in the present application, although that case raises the issue as to how a sentence should be structured to deal with the impact of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002.11 Booth v R [2016] NZSC 43.[2] That appeal is set down for hearing on 5 July 2016. The Registrar should set down the present appeal on the following day or another day in the same week, so that the Court can address the issues at the same time.[3] The applicant will have completed his prison term by the time of that hearing, which raises the issue of mootness. Counsel should address that issue in their submissions.Solicitors:Kerry Burroughs, Hamilton for ApplicantCrown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent