Legal Research
Cases
Carter v The Queen

Carter v The Queen

Case [2016] NZCA 535 9 November 2016

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA327/2014
[2016] NZCA 535

BETWEEN	JOHN ANDREW CARTER Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	8 November 2016
Court:	Asher, Woodhouse and Ellis JJ
Counsel:	M R Bott for Appellant H W Ebersohn for Respondent
Judgment:	9 November 2016 at 11.45 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AAn extension of time to appeal is granted.
BThe appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CThe appeal against sentence is allowed.
DThe concurrent sentences of three years and three months’ imprisonment are quashed.
EWith the support of the Crown, sentences of three years’ imprisonment are substituted, the sentences to be concurrent.

____________________________________________________________________

[Reasons to follow]

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

Details

AGLC: Carter v The Queen [2016] NZCA 535
Case: [2016] NZCA 535
Decision Date: 9 November 2016 at 11.45 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

John Andrew Carter, the appellant, sought an appeal against both his conviction and sentence following a series of criminal convictions. The respondent, the Crown, defended the original decisions made by the lower court. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand, comprising Asher, Woodhouse, and Ellis JJ, heard the case on 8 November 2016 and delivered its judgment on 9 November 2016. The appellant was represented by M R Bott, while the Crown was represented by H W Ebersohn.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appellant was entitled to an extension of time to appeal, and if so, whether the appeal against his conviction and/or sentence should be allowed. The court had to consider the merits of the appellant's arguments regarding the fairness of the trial process and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. In addition, the court needed to evaluate the impact of any potential errors on the overall outcome of the case.

The court granted the appellant an extension of time to appeal, acknowledging that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the delay. However, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding no basis to overturn the lower court's decision. Regarding the appeal against sentence, the court found merit in the appellant's arguments and allowed the appeal. The original concurrent sentences of three years and three months' imprisonment were quashed, and the court, with the Crown's support, substituted sentences of three years' imprisonment, to be served concurrently. The court's decision emphasised the importance of proportionality and consistency in sentencing, as well as the need to ensure that any errors in the original sentencing process were rectified.

Orders