IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 63/2009
[2009] NZSC 94KOBINA BERTUM DADZIE
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Blanchard, Tipping and Wilson JJ
Counsel:P T R Heaslip for Applicant
Judgment:26 August 2009
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1] The applicant was unrepresented in the Court of Appeal where his appeal against convictions for driving while disqualified and refusing to give a blood specimen contrary to s 60 of the Land Transport Act 1998 was dismissed.
[2] The only grounds advanced in seeking leave to appeal to this Court concern alleged breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 relating to that absence of representation. In another case it may be appropriate for this Court to consider issues of the kind now sought to be raised. It will rarely be appropriate, however, for the Court to embark on the determination of legal issues in the absence of a realistic substratum of fact. In this case it is quite apparent from the trial transcript that the appeal to the Court of Appeal never had any prospect of success and it is therefore understandable that legal aid was not forthcoming for a futile appeal.
[3] The Crown case at trial was extremely strong. The defence was that all the Crown witnesses were untruthful and/or that the applicant had been mistaken for another man who, it was said, was actually the driver of the vehicle in which the applicant was found by the police asleep and in an intoxicated state. That other man did give defence evidence in which he said that he was the driver but his testimony was obviously disbelieved by the jury, and understandably so. The account he gave was implausible, as was that given by the applicant. Significantly, the police inspector who came to the scene testified that the applicant admitted to him that he had driven the vehicle in question. Neither the police inspector nor the other Crown witnesses had seen any other man.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington
- AGLC
- Kobina Bertum Dadzie v The Queen [2009] NZSC 94
- Case
- [2009] NZSC 94
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court examined the basis for the appeal and concluded that it was unlikely to succeed. The Court noted that the appeal had no realistic chance of success, as evidenced by the trial transcript, which indicated that the applicant's defence was implausible. The applicant's claim that he had been mistaken for another person who was the actual driver was not supported by credible evidence. The police inspector who attended the scene testified that Dadzie admitted to driving the vehicle. The Court emphasised that it would rarely be appropriate to determine legal issues in the absence of a realistic substratum of fact. In this instance, the Court found that the appeal's lack of prospects for success justified the decision not to grant leave to appeal.
The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, reinforcing the principle that appeals should be based on a realistic chance of success. The Court underscored that the absence of legal representation did not warrant intervention in this case, given the unlikelihood of the appeal succeeding. The decision highlights the importance of a viable basis for an appeal and the Court's reluctance to engage in the determination of legal issues without a solid factual foundation.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.