Bland v R

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judge: Elias,McGrath,Arnold
• Judgment Date: 07 October 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] NZSC 93
• Docket Number: SC 56/2013
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 07 October 2013

Between

Noel Lee Bland

Applicant

and

The Queen

Respondent

[2013] NZSC 93

Elias CJ, McGrath and Arnold JJ

SC 56/2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

Application for leave to appeal against sentence on the ground that since conviction the appellant had given assistance to prosecuting authorities leading to the conviction of a co-offender and was prepared to provide further assistance in the upcoming trial of another co-offender — appellant had denied offending at trial — post trial and pre hearing of an appeal by Court of Appeal, appellant admitted involvement and co-operated with authorities in trial of co-offender — at appeal hearing did not argue assistance ground — whether the assistance provided by appellant post trial entitled him to a discount

counsel

M M Wilkinson-Smith for Applicant

K A L Bicknell and A R van Echten for Respondent

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is refused.

REASONS

1 Following a District Court jury trial, the applicant, Mr Bland, was convicted on one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The Crown case was that he and two others set upon the victim outside a tavern, causing him serious injuries. Mr Bland was sentenced to imprisonment for six years. 1 He now seeks leave to appeal against sentence, on the ground that, since he was sentenced, he has rendered assistance to prosecuting authorities leading to the successful prosecution of one co-offender and is prepared to provide further assistance in the upcoming trial of the other co-offender.

2 Although Mr Bland did not give evidence at his trial, his stance was that he played no part in the offending. He made two statements to this effect to the police. 2

3 Mr Bland appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal. Before the appeal was heard, Mr Bland gave a further statement to the police, in which he admitted that he had participated in the initial stages of the assault (although he denied causing any serious injury to the victim) and implicated his co-offenders. 3 He also indicated that he was prepared to give evidence against them.

4 On his conviction appeal, Mr Bland argued that new evidence had come to light since trial which rendered his conviction unsafe. This new evidence included his further statement to police. The Court of Appeal did not accept that the new evidence should be admitted and dismissed the conviction appeal. 4 On his sentence appeal, Mr Bland raised a number of arguments, 5 but significantly for present purposes did not argue that he was entitled to a discount for his willingness to provide assistance to the authorities.

5 Following the determination of the appeal, Mr Bland gave evidence at the trial of one of his co-offenders, who was convicted. Mr Bland then applied to the Court of Appeal to recall its judgment, 6 on the ground that the Court of Appeal had determined his sentence appeal in ignorance of a critical fact, namely, his assistance to authorities, which entitled him to a discount on sentence. The Court of Appeal dismissed that application, 7 which led to the present application for leave to...