Deliu v King Charles Iii - [2024] NZHC 1664

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-2888

[2024] NZHC 1664

UNDER
the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, Part 30 of the High Court Rules, New

Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 and the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908

IN THE MATTER

of proceedings moving of an application for judicial review, writs, bill of rights claims and a petition for declaratory relief.

BETWEEN

DOCTOR FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU

Applicant

AND

KING CHARLES THE THIRD

First Respondent

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL
Second Respondent

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Third Respondent

Hearing: 5 May 2024

Appearances:

Applicant by video link

D J Perkins for Respondent

Judgment

24 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 June 2024 at 4.00pm,
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….

DELIU v KING CHARLES THE THIRD [2024] NZHC 1664 [24 June 2024]

[1] Mr Deliu applies to have Counsel for the Crown debarred from this proceeding. He says that Crown Counsel and in particular Mr Neild, has misled the Court both administratively and substantively. This, he says, has led to procedural unfairness and undue delay.

The claim

[2] Mr Deliu is presently facing two charges of assault and two charges of perverting the course of justice. These charges were laid in 2017 and 2018 respectively. Mr Deliu is now resident overseas and has no intention of returning. He has made requests to the Crown to:

(a)be extradited.

(b)have the charges withdrawn.

(c)be tried by AVL.

(d)have the charges stayed.

[3] The Crown refused the requests relating to extradition, withdrawal, and AVL. It did not respond at all to the request for stay. Mr Deliu filed these proceedings seeking to review those refusals and lack of response on various grounds, including; breach of ss 25(b) and 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights, errors of law and fact, failure to have regard to relevant considerations and irrationality.

The process

[4] As the claim for debarment relates specifically to the steps taken in this proceeding it is necessary to set out what has occurred to date in some detail. I note that Mr Deliu’s documents are dated one day behind New Zealand time.

[5] On 29 November 2023, the applicant Mr Deliu filed his first statement of claim with an amended claim No 1 filed the same day. An amended Claim No 2 and case management memorandum was then filed on 18 December 2023. A further amended

Claim No 3 was filed on 12 January 2024. Claim No 4 was filed on 16 January 2024, and Amended Claim No 5 was then filed on 21 January 2024.

[6] On 22 January 2024, Mr Neild, unaware of Amended Claim No 5, sought an extension of time for filing the statement of defence. In light of the various amended statements of claim the Crown sought an extension to 12 February 2024 and noted that if any further statements of claim were filed it…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Deliu v King Charles Iii

Details

AGLC: Deliu v King Charles Iii [2024] NZHC 1664
Case: [2024] NZHC 1664
Decision Date: 24 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Deliu v King Charles III [2024] NZHC 1664 involved Dr. Francis Catalin Deliu, an applicant who sought judicial review, writs, bill of rights claims, and declaratory relief against King Charles III and other respondents. Dr. Deliu, currently residing overseas, is facing charges of assault and perverting the course of justice, and has requested various actions regarding these charges, including extradition, withdrawal, trial by AVL, and a stay of proceedings. The Crown denied his requests, prompting Dr. Deliu to file proceedings against the Crown's refusals and lack of response. The primary legal issue in the case was whether the conduct of Mr. Neild, counsel for the Crown, warranted his debarment from the proceedings due to alleged misrepresentations and procedural unfairness.

The Court, Whata J, examined the allegations of misconduct by Mr. Neild, which included claims of misrepresentation about filing deadlines, misleading statements about the stay of proceedings, and failure to file a statement of defence. Dr. Deliu argued that these actions constituted extraordinary or truly egregious misconduct, warranting Mr. Neild’s debarment. However, the Court found that while Mr. Neild’s conduct might have been premature or ambitious, it did not amount to the extraordinary misconduct required for debarment. The Court noted that the high threshold for debarment necessitated something truly egregious, and Mr. Neild’s actions, though potentially imprudent, did not meet this standard.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for debarment and ordered costs on a 2B basis in favour of the Crown, finding the application unjustified. The Court emphasized that while claims of unethical behaviour are serious, not every error or misstep by counsel warrants debarment, especially in the context of the intense activity and multiple filings in the proceeding. The Court concluded that Mr. Neild’s conduct, while not exemplary, did not fall below the standards expected of a model litigant or require intervention through debarment.

Orders