Legal Research
Cases
Jamie Ronaki Kissling v The Queen

Jamie Ronaki Kissling v The Queen

Case [2010] NZSC 63 9 June 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 19/2010
[2010] NZSC 63
JAMIE RONAKI KISSLING
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ
Counsel:B S Yeoman for Applicant

M D Downs for Crown

Judgment:9 June 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1] This application for leave to appeal against convictions for drug offending and car conversion appeal is brought long out of time and has no merit. The applicant faced a strong case on the charges where convictions remain (the Court of Appeal having quashed a conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine).
[2] The applicant’s very generalised assertions of inadequacy of evidence or trial error are not substantiated. No question of general principle or appearance of any miscarriage of justice has been shown.
Solicitors:
B S Yeoman, Lower Hutt for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington

Details

AGLC: Jamie Ronaki Kissling v The Queen [2010] NZSC 63
Case: [2010] NZSC 63
Decision Date: 9 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an appeal by Jamie Ronaki Kissling against his convictions for drug-related offences and car conversion. Kissling's application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Court, which comprised Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ. Kissling's appeal was long overdue and lacked merit. The Court of Appeal had previously quashed a conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine, but upheld the convictions related to drug offences and car conversion.

Kissling's application raised generalised claims of inadequacy of evidence and trial errors but failed to substantiate these claims. The Court found that no question of general principle or miscarriage of justice was demonstrated by Kissling's arguments. Kissling was represented by B S Yeoman, while M D Downs represented the Crown. The Court ultimately dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. No further orders were made, as the appeal was deemed to have no merit and was out of time.

Orders