Craig v Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 109/2024
[2024] NZSC 165

BETWEEN	KYLE JAMES CRAIG Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person M H Cooke for Respondent
Judgment:	5 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe interlocutory applications and application for bail are dismissed.
BThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Craig has sought leave to appeal direct from a judgment of the High Court dismissing his appeal against conviction and sentence.[1]
[1]Craig v New Zealand Police [2024] NZHC 2589 (Osborne J).
Mr Craig is currently serving a 16-month term of imprisonment imposed by the District Court on 19 January 2024 on three charges related to the breach of a protection order and two charges related to the possession of cannabis and refusal to give particulars to enable the unlocking of his mobile phone.[2] He pleaded guilty to those charges.
[2]New Zealand Police v Craig [2024] NZDC 1030 (Judge Harvey).
There are no exceptional circumstances warranting a second appeal from the High Court to this Court.[3] The appeal raises no questions of general or public importance.[4] Nor is there anything to suggest the High Court was wrong.
[3]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 75.
[4]Section 74(2)(a).
We dismiss Mr Craig’s applications to file submissions in reply and be present at an oral leave hearing. We also dismiss Mr Craig’s application for bail.[5]
[5]Bail Act 2000, ss 14(1A) and 54.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Te Tari Ture o te Karauna | Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was asked to review an application from Kyle James Craig, who sought leave to appeal his conviction and sentence. The appeal originated from a High Court decision dismissing Craig's appeal against his conviction and sentence. Craig is currently serving a 16-month term of imprisonment, imposed by the District Court, on charges related to the breach of a protection order and possession of cannabis, among others. Craig pleaded guilty to the charges and sought leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the usual process.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether there were exceptional circumstances warranting a second appeal to the Supreme Court from the High Court. The court also had to determine if the appeal raised questions of general or public importance, and whether there was any indication that the High Court had erred in its judgment. Craig's application was considered in light of the criteria set out in the Senior Courts Act 2016, particularly the requirements for leave to appeal and the presence of exceptional circumstances.

The Supreme Court dismissed Craig's applications for leave to appeal, to file submissions in reply, and for bail. The court found that the appeal did not meet the criteria for exceptional circumstances, nor did it raise questions of general or public importance. Furthermore, there was no indication that the High Court had erred in its decision. The court also rejected Craig's application for bail under the Bail Act 2000.

The Supreme Court's decision was final, and no further appeal was permitted. The court's judgment was that the applications and the appeal for leave were dismissed without further recourse.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established