Barton v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 13/2020
[2020] NZSC 112

BETWEEN	DAVID SIMON BARTON Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	16 October 2020

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The second application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 21 August 2020 (Barton v R [2020] NZSC 84) is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 31 August 2020, this Court dismissed Mr Barton’s application for recall of this Court’s leave judgment of 21 August 2020.[1]
[1]Barton v R [2020] NZSC 87 (Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ); and Barton v R [2020] NZSC 84 (Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ).
Mr Barton now applies for recall of both the recall and leave judgments.
Mr Barton effectively repeats his submissions he made earlier that were rejected. They do not, therefore, provide a ground for recall.[2]
[2]Uhrle v R [2020] NZSC 62 at [29].
There was one new submission raised: Mr Barton’s request for a determination on s 17 of the Crimes Act 1961, which provides that no offender shall be sentenced to solitary confinement. Mr Barton says he spent ten weeks from 25 March 2020 in solitary confinement due to Covid-19 restrictions. Mr Barton was not, however, sentenced to solitary confinement. He was sentenced to three years, two months and two weeks’ imprisonment.[3] Failure of his counsel to draw the Court’s attention to s 17 of the Crimes Act 1961 therefore does not provide a ground for recall.
[3]R v Barton [2018] NZDC 17502 at [46]. Conditions of imprisonment including related to Covid-19 restrictions may be relevant in other contexts.
The second application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 21 August 2020 is therefore dismissed.
We direct the Registrar to reject any further application for recall of the leave judgment of 21 August 2020 and for the recall of the recall judgments, including this judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Simon Barton, the applicant, sought recall of the Supreme Court’s judgment from 21 August 2020, which dismissed his earlier application for recall. The primary issue before the court was whether the second application for recall should be upheld or dismissed. The applicant argued that he had grounds for recall based on a new submission regarding his alleged solitary confinement due to COVID-19 restrictions. The court had to determine whether the applicant's new submission regarding the solitary confinement provided a valid ground for recall, and if the failure of his counsel to mention section 17 of the Crimes Act 1961 constituted a ground for recall.

The court found that the applicant's new submission did not provide a ground for recall. Although Mr. Barton claimed he was held in solitary confinement for ten weeks due to COVID-19 restrictions, the court clarified that he was not sentenced to solitary confinement but rather to three years, two months, and two weeks' imprisonment. The court reasoned that the failure of his counsel to draw attention to section 17 of the Crimes Act 1961 did not constitute a ground for recall. Additionally, the court noted that conditions of imprisonment, including those related to COVID-19 restrictions, could be relevant in other contexts but did not provide a basis for recalling the previous judgments.

The Supreme Court dismissed the second application for recall. The court directed the Registrar to reject any further applications for recall of the leave judgment from 21 August 2020 and any recall of the recall judgments, including this judgment. This decision emphasised that the applicant's submissions did not meet the criteria for recall, and the court would not entertain further applications on the matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established