Commissioner of Police v Li

[2016] NZHC 1553

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-002067 [2016] NZHC 1553

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

ZHIWEI LI
First Respondent

CHENG-LAN WANG Second Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	8 July 2016

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J (RECALL)

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie on 8 July 2016 at 3.00pm

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland

F Deliu, Auckland

Michael Kan Law, Auckland

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v LI & ANOR [2016] NZHC 1553 [8 July 2016]

[1]      I have received an application from the Commissioner of Police asking me to recall my judgment under r 11.9 of the High Court Rules.  The Commissioner seeks various amendments to the same.

[2]      The application is not opposed by either Mr Deliu for the respondent, Mr Li, or Mr Kan for the second respondent, Ms Wang.

[3]      It is appropriate that I should recall my judgment.  I did not express myself as clearly as I should have, and as a result, the judgment does not express what I decided.  I am satisfied that there is a very special reason such that justice requires that the judgment be recalled.1

[4]      In  my judgment,  I referred in  various paragraphs to the Crown,  without making it clear whether I was referring to the Commissioner of Police or the Crown, as represented by the Ministry of Justice.

(a)      In paragraph [8], the second sentence should record that Mr Deliu argued that it was “the Commissioner of Police” that was calling Mr Li.

(b)Similarly,  in  the  second  sentence  of  paragraph  [9],  the  judgment should record that Mr Harborow argued that “the Commissioner” is entitled to cross examine Mr Li on his affidavit.

(c) The same amendments are required to paragraph [18]. In both the second and fourth sentences, the references to the Crown should read as references to “the Commissioner”.

1      Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632.

(d)      Paragraph [22] expresses what I intended to order – namely that the

Crown, through the Ministry of Justice – should meet the costs of the interpreter required by Mr Li in the first instance.

Wylie J