Exley and McMillan v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 70/2007
SC 71/2007
[2007] NZSC 104
DAMON JOHN EXLEY
IAN KENNETH MCMILLAN
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ
Counsel:T Ellis for Applicants

B J Horsley for Crown

Judgment:11 December 2007

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

REASONS
[1]       Both these applicants wish to appeal to this Court against sentences of preventive detention following dismissal of their appeals by the Court of Appeal. In a joint submission they raise nine proposed grounds. These largely reflect the grounds which were rejected by the Court of Appeal. They are designed to attack the lawfulness of the sentence of preventive detention in itself. They also raise various procedural issues; and, finally, they suggest that finite sentences should have been imposed.
[2]       The suggestion that the sentence of preventive detention is unlawful in itself cannot withstand s 4 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. There is no bona fide interpretation issue so a “Hansen” analysis is not required. We do not regard the procedural complaints as fairly arguable. The Court of Appeal was clearly right in the conclusions it expressed in this area. Nor do we consider it fairly arguable that the Court of Appeal erred in what it said about risk evaluation. The contention that finite sentences should have been imposed, and that the minimum non-parole period in the case of Exley should have been shorter, raise no issue falling within s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.
[3]       In short, we are not satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to give leave on any ground. The applications must therefore be dismissed.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Exley and McMillan appealed against their sentences of preventive detention, which were upheld by the Court of Appeal, arguing the sentences were unlawful and that finite sentences should have been imposed. The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed their applications for leave to appeal. The applicants raised nine grounds for appeal, primarily challenging the legality of the preventive detention sentences and suggesting procedural errors, as well as advocating for finite sentences. The Court found that the applicants' arguments against the legality of preventive detention were not sufficiently grounded in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Court also dismissed the procedural complaints, affirming the Court of Appeal's conclusions. The Supreme Court was not convinced that the appeals raised issues necessary for the interests of justice, leading to the dismissal of the applications for leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the Court involved the interpretation of preventive detention under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, procedural fairness, and the appropriateness of imposing finite sentences. The applicants argued that their preventive detention sentences were unlawful, procedurally flawed, and should have been finite sentences instead. The Court assessed these arguments against statutory provisions and previous decisions, finding no grounds for appeal. The Court of Appeal's reasoning and conclusions on these matters were upheld, and no new issues were identified that would warrant leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the applicants' arguments did not present a valid challenge to the sentences of preventive detention or the Court of Appeal's procedural findings. The Court held that the sentences were lawful and that no procedural errors occurred. The suggestion that finite sentences should have been imposed did not constitute a valid ground for appeal under the Supreme Court Act 2003. Consequently, the Court concluded that the applications for leave to appeal should be dismissed, as they did not meet the necessary threshold for consideration in the interests of justice.

The final orders of the Court were to dismiss the applications for leave to appeal. The Court found no merit in the applicants' arguments regarding the legality, procedural fairness, and appropriateness of the sentences. As a result, the applicants' appeals were not permitted to proceed, and the original sentences of preventive detention remained in place. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Court of Appeal and did not find any grounds for overturning the sentences.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established