Christie v Police - [2018] NZHC 2149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-404-327

[2018] NZHC 2149

BETWEEN
LAWRENCE CHRISTIE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 13 August 2018

Appearances:

G H Vear for Appellant K Li for Respondent

Judgment:

21 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application for leave to appeal against conviction]

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 August 2018 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

CHRISTIE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 2149 [21 August 2018]

[1] Mr Christie is 44 years of age, and suffers from an intellectual disability. He has numerous criminal convictions, the earliest of which relates to offending in 1995. Ms Vear argues on his behalf that he has been unfit to plead or stand trial throughout the period from 1995 until the present day. She therefore applies on Mr Christie’s behalf for leave to appeal out of time against all convictions on that ground. She contends leave should be granted under s 123(1) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and s 231(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

The application for leave to appeal out of time: relevant principles

[2] The principles that apply to an application for leave to appeal out of time are well established. They were enunciated in R v Knight1 and confirmed in R v Lee.2 In short, the touchstone is the interests of justice having regard to the relevant circumstances of the case.

[3] This requires the Court to weigh the wider interest of society in the finality of litigation against the interests of the applicant in question. Other factors that may be relevant to the overall balancing exercise include the strength of the proposed appeal, the practical utility of the remedy sought, the length and reasons for the delay, the impact on other persons similarly affected and the possible prejudice for the prosecution.3

The substantive appeal

[4] Unsurprisingly, many of the Court and police files relating to Mr Christie’s historic offending cannot now be located. It is therefore no longer possible to ascertain whether he pleaded guilty to, or was convicted following a defended hearing on, the charges to which the proposed appeal relates.

[5] To the extent that the appeal relates to charges to which Mr Christie entered guilty pleas, the principles are well established. In R v Le Page, the Court of Appeal observed:4

1      R v Knight [1998] 1 NZLR 583 (CA).
2      R v Lee [2006] 3 NZLR 42 (CA).
3      R v Knight, above n 1, at [99].
4      R v Le Page [2005] 2 NZLR 845 (CA) at [16].

[I]t is only in exceptional circumstances that an appeal against conviction will be entertained following entry of a plea of guilty. An appellant must show that a miscarriage of justice will result if his conviction is not overturned. Where the appellant fully appreciated the merits of his position, and made…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Christie v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NZHC 2149
Decision Date: 21 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Lawrence Christie sought leave to appeal out of time against convictions relating to offences that occurred between 1995 and 2015. Christie, who suffers from an intellectual disability, argued that he had been unfit to plead or stand trial throughout the relevant period. The Court considered whether to grant leave to appeal under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The Court found that while there were factors suggesting leave should not be granted, such as the age and number of the convictions, the prejudice to the Crown, and the principle of finality in litigation, the evidence of Christie's intellectual disability and the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice if the convictions were allowed to stand outweighed these factors. The Court granted leave to appeal out of time, allowed the appeal, and set aside the convictions on all charges.

Orders