Crown v R

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judge: Winkelmann J
• Judgment Date: 26 October 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] NZCA 484
• Date: 26 October 2010
• Court: Court of Appeal
• Docket Number: CA527/2010

[2010] NZCA 484

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Court:

Chambers, Winkelmann and Keane JJ

CA527/2010

Between

Anthony Crown

Applicant

and

The Queen

Respondent

Counsel:

W M Johnson for Applicant

N F Flanagan for Respondent

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and the reasons therefor in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Winkelmann J)

1 The applicant, Mr Anthony Crown, is to stand trial in the Wellington District Court on a 35 count indictment alleging offending involving Class A, B & C controlled drugs — LSD, MDMA, BZP and cannabis. The offending is alleged to have occurred in 2009.

2 Mr Crown seeks leave to appeal Judge Tuohy's judgment of 6 August 2010 which rules admissible at trial evidence of Mr Crown's 2007 convictions in relation to possession of methamphetamine for supply and possession of cannabis for supply, and the facts underlying those convictions. He seeks leave on the basis that the Judge erred in granting the Crown application and that the matter cannot be adequately dealt with after trial. Mr Crown intends to argue on appeal that, given the strength of the Crown case, it is unfairly prejudicial to allow the Crown to adduce the evidence of the earlier convictions because that will make a conviction on the present charges inevitable. Mr Crown's defence at trial will be that he sold cannabis to support his addiction to a range of drugs, and that he only had the class A and B drugs for personal use. The evidence of earlier convictions for class A drug dealing, it is said, may make this defence implausible.

3 We are satisfied the application for leave should be declined. The submissions advanced on behalf of Mr Crown really amount to no more than the position described in R v Tui, 1 namely that the propensity evidence is “too good”. As this Court said on that occasion: 2

While this concern can be identified, it cannot be a basis on which to exclude the evidence. It would be almost perverse to require the prosecution...