Colman v Police

[2013] NZHC 560

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI 2012-488-000059 [2013] NZHC 560

JOHN COLMAN

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

On the papers

Judgment:      20 March 2013

JUDGMENT OF GILBERT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20March 2012 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules. Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………….

Counsel:            J D Mildenhall, Wellington:  [email protected]

Copy to:            J Colman, 71 Riverside Drive, Whangarei:  [email protected]

COLMAN V POLICE HC WHA CRI 2012-488-000059 [20 March 2013]

[1]      In a judgment dated 13 March 2013, I dismissed Mr Colman’s appeal against his conviction for assaulting the Crown solicitor in the precincts of the Whangarei District Court.  In dismissing the appeal, I concurred with the findings of fact made by Judge Aitken in the District Court.  I also concurred with her conclusion that the defences raised by Mr Colman of acting to prevent a breach of the peace and in self-defence had not been made out.  I also agreed with the judge’s conclusion that the delay of 10 months in having the prosecution heard was not sufficient in the circumstances of this case to justify staying the prosecution.

[2]      On 14 March 2013, Mr Colman filed a document headed “Application for recall of ruling”.  Mr Colman advised in this document that he intends to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that I did not conduct a genuine appeal, cherry-picked the appeal issues before the court and ignored those that might have favoured him.

[3]      Section  144  of  the  Summary  Proceedings Act 1957  makes  provision  for appeals to the Court of Appeal against a determination of the High Court on a question of law arising in a general appeal. Such appeals can only be made with leave of the High Court, or special leave of the Court of Appeal if the High Court refuses leave.  The High Court may only grant leave for such an appeal if it is of the opinion that the question of law involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.

[4]      Mr Colman’s appeal did not raise any new or difficult issue of law.  It was a straight forward general appeal which required an examination of the evidence and the application of well-settled legal principles.  Although Mr Colman is predictably disappointed with the outcome of his appeal, I do not consider that there is any question of law that ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for its decision.  I

decline Mr Colman’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

M A Gilbert J