Morell v R

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 5/2011
[2011] NZSC 12

GARY MORELL

THE QUEEN

Court: Tipping, McGrath and William Young JJ

Counsel: Applicant in person
N P Chisnall for Crown Law

Judgment: 7 March 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal which Mr Morell had brought to it against a decision of the District Court under the now repealed Proceeds of Crime Act 1991. The Court did so on the dual grounds that it had no jurisdiction and Mr Morell had no standing to appeal in any event. We consider that the decision of the Court of Appeal in these two respects was undoubtedly correct for the reasons the Court gave.

The applicant’s proposed appeal to this Court has no prospects of success and it would not be in the interests of justice to grant leave. For these reasons leave must be declined.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand, presided over by Justices Tipping, McGrath and William Young, was presented with an application for leave to appeal by Gary Morell against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The original decision in question arose from a ruling by the District Court under the repealed Proceeds of Crime Act 1991, which the Court of Appeal dismissed on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction and that Mr Morell did not have standing to appeal. Morell, appearing in person, sought to challenge the Court of Appeal’s decision, while the Crown was represented by N P Chisnall. The Court handed down its decision on 7 March 2011, dismissing the application for leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court centred on the interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and the standing of Mr Morell to appeal the District Court’s decision. The Court of Appeal had ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case and that Mr Morell did not have the requisite standing to bring the appeal, findings that were now under review by the Supreme Court. The central question was whether these grounds were sufficient to uphold the dismissal of Mr Morell’s appeal and to determine whether granting leave to appeal would be in the interests of justice.

The Supreme Court affirmed the correctness of the Court of Appeal’s decision, stating that the dismissal was undoubtedly correct for the reasons provided. The Court found that the appeal had no prospects of success and that granting leave would not serve the interests of justice. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s findings on jurisdiction and standing were upheld, and no grounds were identified that would warrant a reconsideration of these findings by the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, confirming the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Court found that Mr Morell's proposed appeal had no prospects of success and that granting leave would not be in the interests of justice. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and no further appeal was permitted.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established