Gail Maney v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 2/2007
[2007] NZSC 28
GAIL DENISE MANEY
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ
Counsel:P J Kaye for Applicant

K B F Hastie for Crown

Judgment:1 May 2007

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]   The applicant was convicted of murder on a retrial. Her appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. Substantially out of time, she now seeks leave to appeal to this Court. There is no adequate explanation for the delay of nearly 17 months.
[2]   The ground of the proposed appeal is that an important witness for the prosecution has recanted her evidence. The Court of Appeal concluded that the new evidence of this witness lacked credibility. The Court reached this conclusion after hearing the witness give evidence orally “for several hours”. The proposed ground does not raise any matter of general or public importance and we agree with the Court of Appeal that there is “no basis for thinking there has been a miscarriage of justice”.
[3]   As the applicant has been unable to establish a qualifying ground of appeal, her application for leave to appeal must be dismissed. We observe also that, for an application for leave to be granted after an inexcusable delay of the present length, the applicant must ordinarily demonstrate a compelling case for the granting of leave.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gail Denise Maney applied to the Supreme Court of New Zealand for leave to appeal against her conviction for murder, after her appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal had determined that a recanted statement from a key prosecution witness did not possess sufficient credibility to warrant a new trial. Maney's application for leave to appeal was significantly delayed, with nearly 17 months passing between the dismissal of her appeal and her application to the Supreme Court. The court held that the delay was inexcusable and required an explanation which was not forthcoming.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether Maney had established a valid ground for an appeal. The court assessed whether the recanted evidence from the prosecution witness constituted a matter of general or public importance, or if it provided a basis for believing that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The Court of Appeal had already determined that the new evidence was not credible, having heard the witness testify for several hours. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment and concluded that the proposed ground for appeal did not meet the necessary threshold for consideration.

In dismissing Maney's application for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court noted that she had not established a qualifying ground for appeal. The court also emphasised that for leave to be granted following such a significant delay, Maney would have needed to demonstrate a compelling case. The Supreme Court found that this had not been achieved and, consequently, dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established