David Simon Barton v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 13/2020
[2020] NZSC 87

BETWEEN	DAVID SIMON BARTON Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	31 August 2020

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 21 August 2020 (Barton v R [2020] NZSC 84) is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 21 August 2020 this Court dismissed Mr Barton’s application for leave to appeal.[1] He applies for a recall of that judgment.[2]
[1]Barton v R [2020] NZSC 84 (Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ).
[2]The recall application has been dealt with by the panel who sat on the leave application and so it has not been placed before Winkelmann CJ as requested.
The general rule is that a judgment, once delivered, must stand for better or worse.[3] There are, however, three categories of cases where a judgment may be recalled: a legislative amendment or a new development in case law of “high authority”; a failure by counsel to draw attention to a relevant statutory provision or caselaw; or “where for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled”.[4]
[3]Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633; see as cited in Craig v Williams [2019] NZSC 60 at [10].
[4]Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2]; Green Growth No 2 Ltd v Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust [2018] NZSC 115 at [20]; and Craig v Williams, above n 3, at [10].
Most of the matters Mr Barton seeks to raise have already been considered and rejected by the Court. To the extent that is not the case, they are matters that could have been raised earlier. None of the grounds for recall are made out.
The application for recall of our judgment of 21 August 2020 is therefore dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Simon Barton sought to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, which dismissed his application for leave to appeal against a conviction and sentence. Barton sought a recall of the judgment dismissing his leave to appeal application. The Court was constituted by Glazebrook, Ellen France, and Williams JJ, and Barton appeared in person. The Court dismissed Barton's application for recall of its earlier judgment.

The legal issue for the Court was whether there were grounds for recalling the earlier judgment dismissing Barton's application for leave to appeal. The Court noted that judgments generally must stand but may be recalled in certain circumstances. The Court considered whether there had been a legislative amendment or new case law of high authority, whether counsel had failed to draw attention to a relevant statutory provision or case law, or whether some other very special reason existed that justice required the judgment to be recalled. The Court found that none of the grounds for recall were made out.

The Court held that Barton's application for recall of the earlier judgment was dismissed because none of the grounds for recall were satisfied. The Court noted that most of the matters Barton sought to raise had already been considered and rejected by the Court, and to the extent that they had not, they were matters that could have been raised earlier. The Court found that there was no failure by counsel to draw attention to a relevant statutory provision or case law, and no other very special reason existed that justice required the judgment to be recalled.

The Court dismissed Barton's application for recall of its earlier judgment and noted that the earlier judgment stands.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established