Legal Research
Cases
Doran v Police

Doran v Police

Case [2025] NZHC 2252 11 August 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000626 CRI-2024-404-000627 CRI-2024-404-000628

CRI-2024-404-000629 [2025] NZHC 2252

BETWEEN
JOEL KRISTIAN DORAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 24 June 2025

Appearances:

J P Hickey for Appellant

C R Purdon for Respondent

Judgment:

11 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 August 2025 at 3 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

DORAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2252 [11 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] This is an application by Joel Doran for leave to appeal1 five convictions (and the sentences imposed), dating from between 1994 and 2006, when the applicant was aged between 21 and 35 years old. Mr Doran’s notice of appeal was filed on 5 November 2024; 18 to 30 years out of time.

[2] In 2024, Mr Doran applied for a rehearing in the District Court in relation to all five charges. The basis for that application was that he wished to pursue a discharge without conviction due to concerns that his criminal history was impacting on his employment. That application was refused by Judge von Keisenberg.2 Mr Doran also appeals that rehearing decision.

[3]Mr Doran says the purpose of the appeals is:

to request the Court to consider a discharge without conviction given the positive changes effected in the Applicant’s life which could not have been foreseen when he was younger and also consequences that he now faces which were unforeseen at the time of those convictions.

[4] Mr Doran currently works for Wētā Workshop and says the convictions prevent him from travelling and working overseas. He says it is profoundly unjust that he is still being penalised for relatively minor historic convictions and in circumstances where he has served the sentences imposed, never re-offended and made significant and successful efforts to rehabilitate himself.

[5] The Police oppose the application to extend time for appealing and the appeal (rehearing) and submit:

(a)Mr Doran has no right of appeal against Judge von Keisenberg’s decision to refuse his application for rehearing under s 75 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957;

(b)there is no utility to the application for leave to appeal out of time because the Court has no jurisdiction under the relevant s 19 of the

1 Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 123.
2 Doran v Police [2024] NZDC 21720.

Criminal Justice Act 1985 to discharge Mr Doran without conviction for the two excess breath alcohol offences; and

(c)the appeal against conviction and sentence is substantially out of time and the explanation for the delay is unsatisfactory. The appeal appears to lack merit and it is not in the interests of justice for an extension of time to be granted.

[6] Before proceeding, I note that Mr Doran seeks to adduce fresh evidence “for the substantive appeal” in the form of a series of affidavits. The Court may receive further evidence on appeal if it is in the interests of justice to do so.3…

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 Doran v Police

Details

AGLC: Doran v Police [2025] NZHC 2252
Case: [2025] NZHC 2252
Decision Date: 11 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Joel Kristian Doran sought leave to appeal five convictions, dating from 1994 to 2006, and a decision of the District Court declining a rehearing of those convictions. The appellant, now 40 years old, argued that the convictions were unjust and should be discharged without conviction. His employment with Wētā Workshop, which requires overseas travel, was adversely affected by his criminal history. The Police opposed the application, arguing that there was no right of appeal against the refusal to grant a rehearing and that the appeal was out of time and lacked merit.

The court first addressed the issue of jurisdiction, confirming that there is no right of appeal against the refusal to grant a rehearing. It then considered the application for an extension of time to appeal. The court acknowledged the appellant's significant delay in bringing the appeal, noting that he did not fully appreciate the consequences of his convictions until 2023. However, the court found the delay to be not sufficiently compelling given the well-known impact of convictions on employment and travel opportunities at the time of the offending.

The court then assessed the merits of the proposed appeal, finding them to be weak. It considered the gravity of the offences, particularly the high levels of alcohol in the appellant's breath during two driving with excess alcohol convictions. The court found it difficult to see how the appellant could obtain a discharge without conviction, even if the Court had jurisdiction to consider such an application. The court also noted the prejudice to the Police, whose files had been destroyed, and the broader interest in the finality of decisions.

In conclusion, the court declined the application for leave to extend time to appeal, finding that it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave. The court also dismissed the appeal against the District Court's decision to decline a rehearing.

Orders