DION NICHOLAS STITT AND THE KING - [2024] NZCA 566

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA355/2024
[2024] NZCA 566

BETWEEN	DION NICHOLAS STITT Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Ellis, Peters and Downs JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person M R L Davie for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	6 November 2024 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to bring a second appeal against conviction is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellis J)

Following a judge alone trial, Mr Stitt was convicted on 22 September 2023 on four charges arising from events in April 2020: driving while suspended, aggravated assault, resisting police, and wounding with intent to injure.[1] On 1 December 2023, Judge Bonnar KC sentenced Mr Stitt to seven months’ home detention.[2]
[1]Police v Stitt [2023] NZDC 20373 [District Court verdicts judgment] at [98].
[2]Police v Stitt [2023] NZDC 26926 [District Court sentencing notes] at [13].
Mr Stitt’s subsequent appeal against his convictions was dismissed by Gordon J on 14 May 2024.[3]
[3]Stitt v Police [2024] NZHC 1188 [High Court judgment].
On 4 June 2024, Mr Stitt filed a notice seeking leave to bring a second appeal, to this Court. On 18 July 2024, a direction was made that the application for leave be determined on the papers and separately from the proposed appeal. The Deputy Registrar subsequently made a direction that Mr Stitt was to file his submissions in support of leave by 5 pm on 8 August 2024.
Mr Stitt did not comply with that direction and failed to respond to emails from the Registry.
On 12 August 2024, Mr Stitt was formally put on notice that if he did not file substantive submissions in support of the application for leave within 10 working days, the leave application will be referred to two Judges to consider dismissing it on the basis of the material already before the Court.
Mr Stitt did not file any submissions. The leave application was referred for consideration on the basis just mentioned.[4]

The offending and the decisions below

[4]Although it was referred to three, rather than two, judges.

On 24 April 2020, Mr Stitt was driving while suspended. He was speeding and was stopped by police. Mr Stitt attacked two of the police officers, Constable Bentley and Constable Whitefield. Constable Bentley suffered an open head wound and associated concussion, which resulted in ongoing neurological symptoms. She also suffered spinal and leg injuries.
The spinal injury involved a prolapsed spinal disc resulting in permanent nerve damage. Constable Whitefield suffered a serious ankle injury which required surgical intervention.
As noted, Mr Stitt stood trial before Judge Bonnar, sitting alone. The trial started on 10 June 2022. It was adjourned following the close of the Crown case that day and resumed on 3 July 2023. Mr Stitt was represented by counsel: by Hugh Leabourn on 10 June 2022, and by Luka Grbavac and Arlo Hartley on 3 July 2023.[5]
[5]The District Court’s record of appearances indicates…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DION NICHOLAS STITT AND THE KING and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZCA 566
Decision Date: 6 November 2024 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dion Nicholas Stitt has sought leave to bring a second appeal against his conviction on four charges arising from events in April 2020. Mr Stitt was convicted of driving while suspended, aggravated assault, resisting police, and wounding with intent to injure. He was sentenced to seven months' home detention by Judge Bonnar KC on 1 December 2023. An appeal against his convictions was dismissed by Gordon J on 14 May 2024. Mr Stitt's proposed second appeal is broadly based and refers to bad legal representation, trial and appeal judge error, and previous legal representation. The application for leave to bring the second appeal was declined by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed second appeal involved a matter of general or public importance, or whether a miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur unless the appeal was heard. The court noted that the threshold for granting leave to bring a second appeal against conviction is high, as established in McAllister v R. The court found that there was nothing in the material before it to suggest that the proposed appeal involved a matter of general or public importance or that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur. The court further noted that Mr Stitt's proposed appeal seemed to re-run arguments that failed in the High Court, without any supporting evidence. The court found that the District Court and High Court judges had carefully reviewed the evidence and made reasoned credibility findings, and there was nothing new before the Court of Appeal that might cause it to think that their analysis was in error.

The Court of Appeal declined the application for leave to bring a second appeal against conviction. The court found that the proposed appeal did not involve a matter of general or public importance and that there was no evidence of a miscarriage of justice. The court noted that the proposed appeal seemed to re-run arguments that failed in the High Court, without any supporting evidence. The court found that the District Court and High Court judges had carefully reviewed the evidence and made reasoned credibility findings, and there was nothing new before the Court of Appeal that might cause it to think that their analysis was in error. The application for leave to bring a second appeal against conviction is declined.

Orders