Mackrell v The Queen

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA446/2011
[2012] NZCA 464

BETWEEN JASON CRAIG MACKRELL
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Court: Randerson, Stevens and French JJ

Counsel: Appellant in person
Crown Law Office for Respondent

Judgment: 5 October 2012 at 3.30 p.m.

(On the papers)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The purported appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

___________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

The appellant was convicted on 26 September 1997 on one count of murder and three counts of sexual violation. He was sentenced to preventive detention. He appealed against both conviction and sentence (CA437/97). He abandoned his appeal against conviction prior to the hearing and his sentence appeal was dismissed by this Court on 15 September 1998.
On 20 July 2011, the appellant purported to file a further appeal against conviction and sentence. By letter of 18 July 2012, he was advised:
(a) If he wished to pursue the conviction appeal he would need to file an application to set aside the notice of abandonment and a further application for extension of time to appeal.
(b) If he wished to re-open his sentence appeal, he would need to file an application to recall the sentence appeal.
The appellant was advised to seek legal advice. If he wished to pursue these issues, he was directed by Randerson J to file and serve formal applications by 31 August 2012.
The appellant did not comply with that direction and was informed by letter dated 6 September 2012 that his purported appeal would be dismissed under s 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 unless he complied with the directions by 25 September 2012. The letter plainly met the notice requirement in s 338(2). The directions have still not been complied with and, in the circumstances, we exercise the power given in s 338 to formally dismiss the purported appeal CA446/2011.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mackrell v The Queen, CA446/2011, before the New Zealand Court of Appeal, involved the appellant Jason Craig Mackrell appealing against both his conviction and sentence. The appellant, who was represented in person, had previously been convicted of murder and sexual violation, and was sentenced to preventive detention. He initially appealed against both his conviction and sentence, but abandoned the conviction appeal and his sentence appeal was dismissed in 1998. In 2011, he attempted to file another appeal against both conviction and sentence, which was dismissed due to non-compliance with the court's directions. The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's purported appeal was properly dismissed under section 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the appellant's purported appeal was properly dismissed and whether the Court had the authority to dismiss the appeal under the circumstances. The Court found that the appellant's purported appeal was indeed properly dismissed, as he had failed to comply with the court's directions and the notice requirement in section 338(2) was met. The Court also held that it had the authority to dismiss the appeal under section 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The Court of Appeal held that the dismissal of the appellant's purported appeal was appropriate and that there were no grounds for the appeal to proceed.

The Court of Appeal's reasoning was based on the appellant's failure to comply with the court's directions, which had been clearly outlined in previous correspondence. The Court found that the notice requirement in section 338(2) had been met and that the dismissal of the appeal was therefore appropriate. The Court also noted that the appellant had been advised to seek legal advice and had been given a specific deadline to comply with the court's directions. The Court held that it had the authority to dismiss the appeal under section 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and that the dismissal was in accordance with the law.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the purported appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed. The Court did not grant any relief to the appellant and held that the dismissal was appropriate under the circumstances. The Court's decision was based on the appellant's failure to comply with the court's directions and the notice requirement in section 338(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The Court found that the dismissal of the appeal was in accordance with the law and that there were no grounds for the appeal to proceed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established