David Simon Barton v The Queen
[2020] NZSC 87
•31 August 2020
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI MANA NUI |
| SC 13/2020 [2020] NZSC 87 |
| BETWEEN | DAVID SIMON BARTON |
| AND | THE QUEEN |
| 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.
4
0