Trevor John Momo Wilson v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 4/2015
[2015] NZSC 71

BETWEEN	TREVOR JOHN MOMO WILSON Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	K H Cook for Applicant M J Lillico for Respondent
Judgment:	26 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted.
BThe approved questions are:
(a)Was R v Antonievic [2013] NZCA 483, [2013] 3 NZLR 806 correctly decided? And, if not

(b)Does this warrant the quashing of the convictions?

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

There is an issue whether there is a decision of the Court of Appeal under s 383 of the Crimes Act 1961 as to conviction against which an appeal to this Court could lie. If not, there is no jurisdiction for an appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal, but there would be jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal from the High Court.
In those circumstances we will not require argument as to jurisdiction.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trevor John Momo Wilson, the applicant, sought leave to appeal against his convictions in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The convictions arose from criminal charges brought by the respondent, the Crown. The central issue in the case was whether the Court of Appeal had made a decision on the applicant's conviction under section 383 of the Crimes Act 1961, which would allow an appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Court of Appeal had not made such a decision, the Supreme Court would lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Court of Appeal, but it would have jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the High Court.

The court examined whether the decision in R v Antonievic [2013] NZCA 483, [2013] 3 NZLR 806 was correctly decided, and if not, whether this warranted the quashing of the applicant's convictions. The court granted the application for leave to appeal and approved specific questions for consideration, including the correctness of the Antonievic decision and its impact on the applicant's convictions.

In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court noted that the presence or absence of a decision by the Court of Appeal under section 383 of the Crimes Act 1961 was critical to its jurisdiction. The court decided that it would not require further arguments on the jurisdictional matter and granted the application for leave to appeal. The approved questions for appeal addressed the correctness of the Antonievic decision and its implications for the applicant's convictions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established