Deliu v Attorney-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 34/2024
[2024] NZSC 159

BETWEEN	FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Second Respondent

Court:	Ellen France, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person T G H Smith for Respondents
Judgment:	22 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 1 November ‍2024 (Deliu v Attorney-General [2024] NZSC 147) is dismissed.
BThere is no order as to costs.
CThe Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further recall applications relating to this matter.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Deliu has moved for recall of this Court’s decision of 1 November 2024 declining leave to appeal, on the ground that the Court did not give reasons.[1]
[1]Deliu v Attorney-General [2024] NZSC 147.
The Court is permitted to give brief reasons for declining leave.[2] We did so at [11] of the judgment. We consider the reasons given were adequate.
[2]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 77.
The application for recall is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further recall applications relating to this matter.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an application by Francisc Catalin Deliu for the recall of its earlier judgment declining him leave to appeal. Deliu contested the decision on the basis that the Court did not provide reasons for its decision. The Court, comprising Ellen France, Kós, and Miller JJ, evaluated the matter, with Deliu representing himself and T G H Smith appearing for the respondents, the Attorney-General and New Zealand Police. The Court dismissed Deliu's application for recall, affirming that it had provided sufficient reasons for its decision at [11] of the judgment dated 1 November 2024.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the earlier judgment, which declined Deliu leave to appeal, was sufficiently reasoned. The Court held that it was permitted to provide brief reasons for declining leave to appeal under section 77 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, and it found that the reasons given were adequate. Consequently, the Court ruled that the application for recall was without merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs. Furthermore, the Registrar was directed not to accept any further recall applications concerning this matter.

In summarising the outcome, the Supreme Court upheld its previous judgment and dismissed Deliu's application for recall, emphasizing the adequacy of the reasons provided for declining leave to appeal. The Court's decision was final, with no costs awarded and a directive to the Registrar to prevent further recall applications in relation to this case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established