THE QUEEN v SAI LUCY LAW [2002] NZCA 98 (9 May 2002)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

ca 7/02

THE QUEEN

V

SAI LUCY LAW

Coram:	Gault J Keith J Anderson J
Appearances:	Appellant in Person A Markham for Crown
Judgment (on the papers):	9 May 2002

judgment of the court DELIVERED BY ANDERSON J

[1] This appeal against conviction has been heard on the papers under the Crimes (Criminal Appeals) Amendment Act 2001. The relevant materials, including written submissions received in accordance with r29 of the Court of Appeal (Criminal) Rules 2001, have been considered by the members of the Court who have conferred and agreed upon this judgment.

Offences and sentence

[2] The appellant was charged with causing a letter to be received by the complainant, knowing that the letter contained a threat to do grievous bodily harm, an offence under s306(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. She was convicted after trial in the District Court at Whangarei and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within 12 months.

Relevant facts

[3] The appellant was a plaintiff in two civil actions at the time the offence was committed. The complainant was the solicitor for the other parties in the civil proceedings. The complainant, between 1 and 5 May 1998, received a letter containing a threat to one of her clients. The letter stated that "there are people in Auckland and Sydney who would like to ram a 10-foot pole through the arsehole of one of your clients should the case go to trial". The letter was unsigned but the appellant's name appeared at the foot. The complainant's clients received a nearly identical copy of this letter by facsimile.

[4] The appellant represented herself at trial, and gave evidence. She admitted that she had faxed a letter almost identical to that received by the complainant to the complainant's clients but denied sending the unsigned letter to the complainant. She alleged that an employee of one the complainant's clients intercepted the faxed letter, copied it and had it posted to the complainant.

Grounds of appeal

[5] The conviction is appealed against on a number of grounds. These can be summarised as:

[a] That the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence,

[b] That the trial venue was inappropriate,

[c] That one of the witnesses committed perjury,

[d] That the medical certificate provided by the complainant was a fraud,

[e] That there were instances of police misconduct leading up to the trial.

Reasons

[6] There is plainly an adequate evidential basis for the jury's verdict. The issue of whether the appellant sent the letter to the complainant was central at trial and the appellant's account of events was before the jury. The jury was entitled not to accept that account and there was ample evidence before the jury to support the verdict reached. The first ground of appeal accordingly fails.

[7] As to the question of the trial venue, the matter is governed generally by s18 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. Of relevance is a proviso to subs (1) that failure to comply shall not be deemed to invalidate any proceedings. No application was made by the appellant for a change of trial venue and there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant was prejudiced by the trial proceeding in Whangarei. In relation to the further grounds advanced by the appellant, we are satisfied that no miscarriage of justice has occurred. There is no evidential basis for the allegations and the complaints were rejected by the jury. The further grounds of appeal also fail.

Result

[8] There is no substance in the appeal and nothing to justify granting leave to appeal out of time in any event. Leave to appeal is refused accordingly.

Solicitors

Crown Law Office, Wellington