Legal Research
Cases
Bennett v District Court

Bennett v District Court

Case [2020] NZHC 1730 16 July 2020

Judicial Review

Abuse of Process

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Administrative Law

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2020-409-000108

[2020] NZHC 1730

BETWEEN
PAUL JAMES BENNETT

Applicant

AND

DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

First Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Second Respondent

Hearing: 14 July 2020

Counsel:

S J Shamy for the Applicant

H Carrad and C Wrightson for the First Respondent (appearances excused)
F Sinclair for the Second Respondent

Judgment:

16 July 2020

JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J

Introduction

[1] The applicant, Mr Bennett, has applied for judicial review of the decision of Judge Kellar in the District Court at Christchurch, declining to stay the proceedings against him on the ground that they are an abuse of process.1

[2]The first respondent has indicated it will abide the decision of the Court.

[3] The Attorney-General asks the Court to strike out the claim, on the ground that the judicial review is itself an abuse of process.

1 R v Bennett [2019] NZDC 16311.

BENNETT v DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND & ANOR [2020] NZHC 1730 [16 July 2020]

Factual background

[4]Mr Bennett faces three tranches of charges:

(a)62 charges for dishonesty offences, alleged to have occurred between 1997 and 2014, set down for a three-week trial beginning 17 August 2020;

(b)charges for indecent assault and drug related offending in 2008, scheduled for a pre-trial call over in the District Court at Auckland on 21 July 2020; and

(c)Civil Aviation Authority charges, scheduled for a pre-trial call over in the District Court at Christchurch in July 2020.

[5] One of the dishonesty charges alleges that Mr Bennett, jointly with Simone Wright (as she was then known), stole a yacht in Paihia, New Zealand and sailed it to Sydney, Australia in 2015.

[6] Mr Bennett is a New Zealand citizen. When he and Ms Wright arrived in Australia in 2015, he had no valid passport or visa for entering Australia. In May 2016, he was deported to New Zealand. On arrival in New Zealand, he was arrested and charged.

[7] Mr Bennett applied to the District Court for a stay of proceedings, on the basis that his deportation to New Zealand was a disguised extradition. Disguised extradition is a means by which states achieve jurisdiction over a person, going through official extradition processes. The procedures are lawful, but they are sometimes used abusively to circumvent an otherwise accepted ground for denying the return of an individual to the requesting state.

[8] Mr Bennett applied for a stay on the ground that the prosecution was an abuse of process, due to this disguised extradition. In Wilson v R, the Supreme Court held the “power of a court to grant a stay of proceedings has long been recognised as

necessary to enable a court to prevent an abuse of its processes.”2 The Court noted the existence of this power had been confirmed in several decisions of the Court of Appeal, most notably Moevao v Department of Labour.3 The Supreme Court held a stay may be granted in criminal…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bennett v District Court

Details

AGLC: Bennett v District Court [2020] NZHC 1730
Case: [2020] NZHC 1730
Decision Date: 16 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Paul James Bennett, the applicant, sought judicial review of a decision by Judge Kellar of the District Court at Christchurch, declining to stay proceedings against him on the ground that they are an abuse of process. Bennett faced three tranches of charges, including dishonesty offences, indecent assault, drug related offending, and charges under the Civil Aviation Act. He argued that his deportation to New Zealand from Australia was a disguised extradition, amounting to an abuse of process. The District Court dismissed the stay application, and Bennett sought judicial review of this decision. The Attorney-General applied to have the judicial review application struck out, on the ground that it is an abuse of process.

The court had to decide whether the application for judicial review is an abuse of process, and if the circumstances of the case were so exceptional as to warrant the narrow residual jurisdiction of the Court to entertain judicial review of the refusal to stay. The court considered the principles established in previous cases, such as DGN v Auckland District Court and Angus v District Court, which held that judicial review of a District Court decision in a criminal case is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances, particularly where there is an alternative remedy available. However, the court also noted that disguised extradition is a serious affront to the integrity of any justice system, and if proven, it is exceptional in character and warrants a remedial response.

The court found that while the gate to applications for judicial review in the pre-trial criminal context is narrow, this case establishes an exceptional case. The possibility of perpetuating injustice through a disguised extradition, coupled with the fundamental freedoms and rights at stake, warranted the application for judicial review to proceed. The application for strike out was refused.

The final orders of the court were that the application for strike out is refused, and the application for judicial review of the District Court's refusal to grant a stay may proceed.

Orders