Billy’s Application which was filed yesterday afternoon was successfully granted by the Supreme Court today. This meant that his bracelet for Home Detention which was attached to Billy this afternoon was also removed this afternoon! For this, we are very grateful to the kindness and support of the probation officers who rang the Supreme Court many times to have his Application decided upon by three Judges of the Supreme Court, the person at the Supreme Court who achieved this co-ordination and the three Judges who must have set aside other important work to treat his Application with urgency.
For those who are interested, the text of the Application for leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court is set out below. It sets out the grounds for appeal from the Court of Appeal and the Judgments we seek, upon which our Submissions to the Supreme Court will be based.
We have widened our ambit in this Appeal to include domestic and international human rights legislation to challenge the law on prohibiting medicinal marijuana following a letter I have finally received from the Ministry of Health which attempted to answer my question to them as to how a person with a medical endorsement and prescription for medicinal marijuana and an exemption under section 8(2) can actually receive “lawful supply” of cannabis for this purpose. Their response was tellingly negative since, effectively, the combination of Regulations under the MoDA and the government policy (in short, not to allow licenses to supply cannabis until research proved that it was not damaging) means that (a)the government is interefering in, and superceding its reasons over, a doctor’s learning and professional medical advice; and (b) the international and domestic human rights legislation is being breached since, in my view, anyway, such Regulations and policy is unconstitutional and illegal.
So as well as the above, we are again, and with some additional and infinitely improved supportive documentation for the original idea, pushing for the proposed sensible interpretation of section 8(2)(c) MoDA for cultivation and supply of medicinal cannabis for exemption card holders, the request for Judges to include all, and not part of the law, in their directions to juries i.e., to include the rights and powers of juries to consider the justness of the law as envisioned by Magna Carta which introduced the formalisation of trial by jury plus the original right of the jury (and not the Judge) to decide whether the evidence obtained from entrapment by undercover officers should be admitted and, finally, the final quashing of Billy’s convictions and sentence.
I am always grateful for any information and advice from people to assist me in this case. I am giving it my full attention but I am not stupid enough to ignore the fact that there are much more educated and informed people who have studied this field for many years and are in an excellent position to offer their valuable contributions to this case. If it is done well enough, it is my firm belief that we may be able to find the way to making medicinal cannabis legal which will assist the health and wellbeing of many people.
So please do not be shy with your contribution. It will be acknowledged. Already Julian Crawford has passed me a valuable case from Canada (R V Parker) to which I am most obliged to him.
In respect of GreenCross exemption card holders, I would like to make a special appeal to you to help me with Billy’s appeal case. I need copies of each of your doctor’s prescriptions and endorsements for your medicinal cannabis use so that I can assess the range of ill-health that your prescription covers and also to show the Court how the Regulations under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the government policy regarding licenses issuable by the Ministry of Health has been unconstitutional and a breach of domestic and international human rights legislation.
I am happy for you to black out your names – your name is not at all necessary for the case – and can assure you that solicitor-client privilege should apply for any protection you may desire in any event – and ask that you send the copies of your records for the Application for Green Cross membership and exemption to RMA Purchas, 28 Gloucester Street, Upper Hutt 5010.
Thank you very much for your trust and co-operation.
Rosie Purchas (lawyer and McKenzie friend for Billy McKee)
Notice of application for leave to bring criminal appeal
In the Supreme Court of New Zealand
William Duffield McKee v The Queen
Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
To the Registrar of the Supreme Court
I, William Duffield McKee, the Appellant in the proceeding identified above, give you notice that I apply for the leave of the Supreme Court to appeal to the Court against the dismissal of the appeal in respect of the conviction and sentence of William Duffield McKee as held by the Court of Appeal in Wellington in their Judgment dated 22 August 2013 in relation to the five charges (being one of cultivation and four of the supply of cannabis) for which I was convicted on all charges on 7 September 2012 and sentenced to one year home detention on 30 October 2012 at the Palmerston North High Court.
. What are the specific grounds of your proposed appeal?
The decision by the Court of Appeal judges to reject the proposed interpretation of section 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 thereby :-
rendering doctors’ professional recommendations and prescriptions for patients to use and benefit from the use of raw cannabis for their effective medicinal and health needs impracticable and unusable;
making the exemption from prosecution for personal use of medicinal cannabis, as provided for and accepted under the Green Cross exemption card, under this subsection impracticable and unworkable and a logical fallacy since, except by the proposed interpretation being accepted, there is no means for lawful supply of medicinal cannabis as prescribed by the medical profession;
breaching sections 8 and 9 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990;
breaching Clause 29 of Magna Carta 1215 (as adopted into New Zealand legislation by the Imperial Laws Adoption Act 1888).
That further facts have been disclosed to me following the Court of Appeal case via a letter from the ministry of Health in response to mine written to them prior to my case being heard but which remained unanswered until after the Court of Appeal Judgment and so could not be examined by the Court of Appeal. The information disclosed in this letter (a) jeopardises and interferes with the authority of medical practitioners’ prescriptions to their patients for the benefit to them of medicinal cannabis; (b) relies on the employment of Regulations which I consider are unconstitutional and in breach of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and other domestic and international human rights legislation; (c) requires clarification as to validity in law of the Regulations; and (d) requires taking into account by the Court in order to pursue and confirm the efficacy, validity and interpretation of the section 8(2)(c) MoDA exemption from prosecution for personal use of medicinal cannabis as prescribed by a patient’s doctor, as well as for the personal cultivation and supply of medicinal cannabis for the Green Cross Members exemption card holders.
That the Court of Appeal was incorrect in its ruling that the Judge did not misdirect the jury so that the right to the benefit of trial by jury as provided under section 4 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Judge did not direct the jury as to their full rights and duties under the law, as intended by the originating legislature relating to trial by jury of Magna Carta.
In criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what the facts are, what the law is, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice and rightness of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws. The Judge particularly stated that this was not the jury’s function and, despite the decision by the Court of Appeal that these directions were justifiable on the basis that they are “authorised standard directions” and therefore legitimate and acceptable, I dispute this and wish to petition the Supreme Court to hear my reasons why these standard directions are unjust and in direct contradiction and contrary to the very purpose and intention of Magna Carta which is the trial by jury’s instigating legislation.
Since the Court of Appeal has recently held that a stay of proceedings or the quashing of a conviction will only be appropriate where there is an abuse of process or an unfair trial and since it is submitted that the standard directions of the Judge lent themselves to an unfair trial, I seek the quashing of my convictions and sentence.
The conviction and sentence is in breach of sections 8 and 9 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990. The cultivation of cannabis was for my personal medicinal use and the only means available to me to obtain cannabis to benefit my life and health. The use of medicinal cannabis is a necessary medicine for me and I consider it to be tantamount to my right to life and security. The convictions and removal of my personal supply of cannabis has been to subject me to torture and cruel treatment. My personal position is that my life is now at a point where I am overcome by suicidal thoughts and feelings which is causing negative effects on my family life and necessitating visits to my doctor. The Bill of Rights and the domestic and international human rights legislation guarantees me that these rights to life, liberty and the right to maintain my health, with the free choice, self determination and advice and the educated medical approval of my doctor may not be infringed. It is not happening.
The four convictions of supplying the small amounts to the undercover officer and Green Cross exemption card member are a result of entrapment, are unjust and is evidence that should have been allowed to be questioned by the jury as to its applicability according to the purpose and intention of the instigating legislation of jury trials under Magna Carta. I wish the Supreme Court to reconsider the entrapment issue as I do not accept that it is true or just that their reasons for dismissing my submissions on this aspect of my case were accurate since I do not accept that the undercover officer’s actions provided an “unexceptional opportunity” to offend but that my belief that he was very ill and would benefit from the raw medicine which he requested was “virtue testing” only since, from my perspective, it was an exceptional situation and the only opportunity it afforded me was to assist a fellow human being who was suffering and who asked for my help. I did so as a consequence of my humanitarianism only. To me, to refuse him would have been a breach of the Bill of Rights Act and all human rights legislation and conscience as per myself to him. The fact that he had a Green Cross card was relevant to me also as it led me to believe that his doctor had authorised the use of medicinal cannabis in respect of his medical condition.
There have been many breaches of domestic and international human rights in my case from start to finish and to which the convictions and processes of law in the aforementioned stated grounds for my appeal to the Supreme Court relate. The injustices are irreconcilable with the domestic and international governing legislation, Conventions, Protocols and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and breaches of the human rights against me include:
Right to due process of law
Right to life, liberty and security of person
Right not to be subjected to attacks upon his honour and reputation
Protection of the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities
Right to health
1.6.1 International Legislation
These alleged breaches are contained in the following international legislation and United Nations Declaration, Ordinances, Conventions and Protocols:-
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 (amended 1972)
The Single Convention repeatedly affirms the importance of medical use of controlled substances. The Preamble notes that “the medical use of narcotic drugs continues to be indispensable for the relief of pain and suffering and that adequate provision must be made to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs for such purposes”. Articles 1, 2, 4, 9, 12, 19, and 49 contain provisions relating to “medical and scientific” use of controlled substances. In almost all cases, parties are permitted to allow dispensation and use of controlled substances under a prescription, subject to record-keeping requirements and other restrictions.
Article 4 requires nations to limit use and possession of drugs to medicinal and scientific purposes.
Rather than calling on nations to prosecute drug users, the treaty focuses on traffickers and producers.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Article 25 specifies that “persons with disabilities have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the basis of disability” and pertains directly to me.
Other guarantees under this Convention include:-
Respect for the inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons
Full and effective participation and inclusion in society
Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity
European Charter of Patients’ Rights
Patient rights in healthcare delivery include: the right to privacy, information, life, and quality care, as well as freedom from discrimination, torture, and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. Patient’s rights include the right to freely choose from among different treatment procedures and providers on the basis of adequate information, the right to diagnostic or therapeutic programmes tailored as much as possible to his or her personal needs and the right to avoid unnecessary suffering and pain.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Optional Protocol on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Right to health
Article 12 of the Covenant recognises the right of everyone to “the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” “Health” is understood not just as a right to be healthy, but as a right to control ones own health and body, and be free from interference. Protecting rights to health with a comprehensive system of healthcare, which is available to everyone without discrimination, and economically accessible to all is breached where the only access to lawfully supplied cannabis based medication is Sativex which is currently too expensive for the disabled or ill people who lack employment as a result of their medical conditions.
Article 12.2 requires parties to take specific steps to improve the health of their citizens, and creating conditions to ensure equal and timely access to medical services for all.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Articles 6 – 27 lists the rights which include rights to
physical integrity, in the form of the right to life and freedom from torture and slavery (Articles 6, 7, and 8);
liberty and security of the person, in the form of freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and the right to habeas corpus (Articles 9 – 11);
procedural fairness in law, in the form of rights to due process, a fair and impartial trial, the presumption of innocence, and recognition as a person before the law (Articles 14, 15, and 16);
individual liberty, in the form of the freedoms of movement, thought, conscience and religion, speech, association and assembly, family rights, the right to a nationality, and the right to privacy (Articles 12, 13, 17 – 24);
prohibition of any propaganda for war as well as any advocacy of national or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence by law (Article 20);
political participation, including the right to join a political party and the right to vote (Article 25);
Non-discrimination, minority rights
1.6.2 Domestic Legislation
Bill of Rights Act 1990
Life and security of the person
8 Right not to be deprived of life
No one shall be deprived of life except on such grounds as are established by law and are consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.
9. Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment
Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.
Non-discrimination and minority rights
19 Freedom from discrimination
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993.
(2) Measures taken in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination that is unlawful by virtue of Part 2 of the Human Rights Act 1993 do not constitute discrimination.
21A Application of this Part limited if section 3 of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 applies
(1) The only provisions of this Part that apply to an act or omission of a person or body described in subsection (2) are—
(a) sections 21 to 35 (which relate to discrimination in employment matters), 61 to 64 (which relate to racial disharmony, and social and racial harassment) and 66 (which relates to victimisation); and
(b) sections 65 and 67 to 74, but only to the extent that those sections relate to conduct that is unlawful under any of the provisions referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) The persons and bodies referred to in subsection (1) are the ones referred to in section 3 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, namely—
(a) the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Government of New Zealand; and
(b) every person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law.
Human Rights Act 1993
21. Prohibited grounds of discrimination
disability, which means—
(i) physical disability or impairment:
(ii) physical illness:
(iii) psychiatric illness:
(iv) intellectual or psychological disability or impairment:
(v) any other loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function:
(vi) reliance on a guide dog, wheelchair, or other remedial means:
(vii) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing illness:
44. Provision of goods and services
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person who supplies goods, facilities, or services to the public or to any section of the public—
(a) to refuse or fail on demand to provide any other person with those goods, facilities, or services; or
(b) to treat any other person less favourably in connection with the provision of those goods, facilities, or services than would otherwise be the case,—
by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Part 2 of the Human Rights Act 1993, dealing with unlawful discrimination, concerns the police victimisation of myself and medicinal cannabis users in its targeting Green Cross, a legitimate health information website about medicinal cannabis, without complaint or reason so to do since the website is informational only then using underhand methods by placing an undercover officer to appeal to my humanitarianism and sympathies and, only after much persuasion by that undercover officer having me pass him a very small amount of medicinal cannabis from my personal supply over a long period of time. Given the entirety of the circumstances, my personal health and disabilities and the undercover officer’s use of manipulation of my humanitarian principles, I do not accept that this process employed by the police was not victimisation, entrapment, virtue testing, legitimate or just.
1.7 That the Judge misdirected the jury and that the right to the benefit of trial by jury (as provided under section 4 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 was breached in her so doing since she did not direct the jury as to their full rights and powers in considering the justness of the law with regard to medicinal cannabis and the particular circumstances of entrapment by an undercover officer. The Court of Appeal in the UK has recently held that a stay of proceedings or the quashing of a conviction will, as before, only be appropriate where there is an abuse of process or an unfair trial. “Magna Carta should not be read to require a stay of proceedings, or the quashing of a conviction, unless there has been an abuse of process or an unfair trial.” The Judge’s directions were inadequate in terms of the benefit of trial by jury and mine was therefore an unfair trial.
2. Why should the Supreme Court give leave to hear your proposed appeal? In giving your reasons, refer to the criteria set out in section 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.*
The Supreme Court should give leave to hear my proposed appeal as it comes within all of the criteria of section 13(2) Supreme Court Act 2003, namely:
It is necessary in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to hear
and determine a proposed appeal if—
(a) the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance; or
(b) a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred, or may occur unless the appeal is heard; or
(c) the appeal involves a matter of general commercial significance.
The matter of general and public importance is that with the decision of the Court of Appeal choosing to deny the sensible and reasonable interpretation of section 8(2) on the sole basis that the legislature did not envisage this interpretation, the law becomes ineffective, impracticable, logically incoherent and a nonsense in terms of disabling and disallowing the exemption gained under section 8(2) for medicinal cannabis and preventing all citizens of New Zealand from any benefit from their doctors’ professional advice and opinion. These citizens are therefore being forced to sacrifice their health and wellbeing unless the Judiciary decides to interpret the law in the reasonable and practical way presented to the Court of Appeal to allow lawful supply of raw cannabis for patients’ medicinal needs as prescribed and accepted by their paid health professional advisers.
In addition, it is a matter of general and public importance for the Court to assess whether the Ministry of Health and its related Regulations concerning the MoDA with regard to the use of medicinal marijuana in NZ, the licensing, interference by government in, and potential over-ruling of, medical practitioners’ advices and prescriptions for medicinal cannabis in respect of all doctors’ patients is constitutional, legally valid and just.
A substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred if this appeal is not heard since although I have an exemption from prosecution under section 8(2)(c) for the medicinal use of cannabis so that I may benefit from medicinal marijuana for the relief it gives to spasms and pain as recommended and prescribed by my doctor and health adviser (but since the letter from the MoH this is perhaps only by way of convention in the acceptance by police and the courts of its validity), my cultivation charge relates to the ability to legally me with this recommended medicine so that, if the Court of Appeal Judgment is not rectified, I have been left with no pain or spasm relief since there is no legal supply of cannabis and Sativex is not financially realistic for me.
In addition, a further miscarriage of justice will occur to me and also to the elderly patients who are Green Cross Members and exemption card holders and who also require medicinal cannabis but who can not grow it themselves due to their ill health and/or disabilities, if the four charges of supply of cannabis from my own personal medicinal supply to the undercover officer (who received a Green Cross exemption card) are upheld and the proposed sensible and practical interpretation of the section 8(2)(c) exemption is not endorsed by the Courts so that to supply to another Green Cross exemption card holder would be considered “lawfully supplied”.
The matter of general commercial significance is that whilst law is not enacted or current legislation interpreted to allow lawful supply of raw cannabis to patients, and whilst the exemption under section 8(2) is accepted to prevent prosecution for personal but is not interpreted to allow that any cultivation and supply of cannabis for medicinal use is also exempted from prosecution, the use of the exemption under section 8(2) becomes a logical fallacy and a nonsense and these patients are forced to either suffer or to pay large amounts of money for Sativex instead of the relatively inexpensive herb that may be grown by the patient himself avoiding the costs of the repeated doctors’ visits, prescriptions, chemists and retail costs. Sativex is a generic drug and is impure and is not always the best treatment for a patient’s particular problem as the cannabis plant has numerous strains and variations in its molecular structure and composition. The only commercial benefit is to everyone in the health industry involved with the patient’s health other than the patient himself, his purse and his health for so long as the law prevents the doctors’ professional advice being effective and effected and his prescriptions and health recommendations impossible to apply in any legal way for the use of medicinal cannabis for patients.
3. What judgment do you seek from the Supreme Court?
I seek a judgment from the Court to interpret section 8(2) to allow those people granted exemption cards under this section to expect not only the exemption from prosecution for personal use, but, in order to benefit from that exemption, to extend its interpretation to an exemption for cultivation by and supply to all exemption card holders.
I seek a judgment that the Regulations jeopardising the validity of, and interfering with the prescriptions for, medicinal cannabis from registered medical practitioners are in breach of human rights legislation and are constitutionally invalid.
I seek a Judgment that the Government has no authority to overrule medical learning and professional medical expertise and judgement to supercede its reasons for refusing to issue licenses to people for the legal supply of medicinal cannabis over the professional advice, learning and judgement of a patient’s doctor and health professional.
I seek a judgment that it is a breach of the domestic and international human rights legislation to prevent a citizen from exercising his human right to choose the medicine that increases and enhances his own pursuit of happiness, that best safeguards his health and gives security to his life and is not costly so that further financial stress is avoided (and in particular where this medicinal use of marijuana is specifically endorsed by a fully trained, paid, health professional and medical adviser).
I seek a judgment that the exemption from personal prosecution for medicinal cannabis use under section 8(2)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 be interpreted to include an exemption for personal cultivation for this purpose and for amounts in terms of the Doctor’s prescription and for the exemption for prosecution for supply to cover those patients who come within the exemption in such amounts as prescribed by their doctor.
I seek a judgment that it is in breach of both domestic and international human rights legislation to deny a patient the supply of medicinal cannabis when that patient has received professional medical and health advice that it is beneficial.
I seek a judgment that legalises the medicinal use of cannabis.
I seek a judgment that the directions of a Judge to a jury give expression to the entire law and not just a part of the law in terms of the rights and powers of a jury.
I seek a judgment that requires either alteration or a full and proper review of the current “standard and authorised” directions from a Judge to a jury with respect to the Judge’s directions to include all, not some, of the law and rights of the jury insofar as such directions are to specifically include the intentions and reasons for the introduction of a trial by jury and that it is a right and power of the jury to consider the justness of the law being applied where the jury considers this to be relevant in the circumstances and to be cognisant of the jury’s right of Jury Nullification.
I seek a Judgment that in jury trials it is for the jury to decide whether there has been entrapment and whether an undercover officer’s evidence should be accepted.
I seek a judgment that my convictions for cultivation and supply are quashed and
I seek a judgment that my sentence of six months home detention is quashed and dismissed.
4. If the decision you wish to appeal against was not made by the Court of Appeal, what exceptional circumstances justify taking the proposed appeal directly to the Supreme Court?
The exceptional circumstances that justify my taking it to the Supreme Court is that the reason provided by the Court of Appeal with regard to the proposed interpretation of section 8(2) (i.e., that it was not envisaged by the legislature) is not acceptable. It is not acceptable since this same reason was ignored by the Court of Appeal in the same Judgment regarding the Judge’s directions and jury nullification. It is unacceptable because it continues the logical fallacy of the exemption as it pertains to medicinal marijuana in making the practical medical advice for patients requiring and benefiting from medicinal cannabis impossible to follow for the benefit of a person’s health, life and pursuit of happiness and, as such, is and leads to breaches of both domestic and international human rights legislation.
Further additional exceptional circumstances have also arisen in terms of new relevant information from the Ministry of Health (which I requested months prior to my Court of Appeal hearing but which only was replied to yesterday, 28 August 2013).
The exceptional circumstances that justify my appeal to the Supreme Court with regard to the alleged misdirection by the Judge to the jury is that the reason for the Court of Appeal not accepting that these directions were against the very benefit of a trial by jury is that they were “unexceptional” and “standard” directions. It is an exceptional circumstance when a legal body claims that it is issuing unexceptional, standard directions on the law to a jury but omits to give directions on the full law and only part of the law. It is an exceptional circumstance to rely on a repeated alleged wrongdoing for its justification when for approximately 750 years following Magna Carta, no such directions were given and if it is considered acceptable for the Court of Appeal to rely on 100 years of precedent to issue directions on part of the law then we ask that the original directions be substituted for the present directions since it must be more acceptable to rely on 250 years of precedent.
The exceptional circumstances that justify my appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of the undercover officer’s behaviour, which the Court of Appeal did not consider to be entrapment, is that the Court of Appeal based this decision on facts that were not true or accurate and I wish the Supreme Court to hear me out as to where the Court of Appeal misunderstood or unintentionally misrepresented the facts on which they relied for their Judgment on this issue.
5. You have 20 working days from the date of the decision against which you wish to appeal in which to file your application. (If you are the respondent, the time for filing your application is 15 working days after the appellant’s application is served on you.) The Court may extend this time. If your application is out of time, what are your reasons for saying that the Court should nevertheless extend the time and consider your application? N/A
6. (a) Is any lawyer now acting for you?
No but I would like all copies of correspondence to me to be sent to my McKenzie friend, Rosemary Purchas.
(b) If so, give his or her name and address and fax number:
28 Gloucester Street,
Upper Hutt 5010
(c) Have you applied, or do you intend to apply, to the Legal Services Agency for a grant of legal aid? No.
7. If you are currently in a penal institution, which one? N/A
8. If you do not currently have a lawyer, what is your current postal address and fax number (if any)?
17 Graham Street
Dated this 29th day of August 2013.
Signature of applicant
17 Graham Street,
*Section 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 provides as follows:
13 Criteria for leave to appeal
(1) The Supreme Court must not give leave to appeal to it unless it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal.
(2) It is necessary in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to hear and determine a proposed appeal if—
(a) the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance; or
(b) a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred, or may occur unless the appeal is heard; or
(c) the appeal involves a matter of general commercial significance.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a significant issue relating to the Treaty of Waitangi is a matter of general or public importance.
(4) The Supreme Court must not give leave to appeal to it against an order made by the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory application unless satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal before the proceeding concerned is concluded.
(5) Subsection (2) does not limit the generality of subsection (1); and
subsection (3) does not limit the generality of subsection (2)(a).