Edmonds v Penno - [2023] NZHC 3073

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-409-116

[2023] NZHC 3073

BETWEEN
KENETH TAIPOTO EDMONDS

Appellant

AND

WENDY ANN PENNO

Respondent

Hearing: 12 October 2023

Appearances:

Appellant in person

No appearance for the Respondent

Judgment:

1 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF HARLAND J

Introduction

[1] Keneth Edmonds submitted a charging document, in a private prosecution, alleging Wendy Penno attempted to murder him. Judge Callaghan directed that the charging document not be accepted for filing under s 26(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA) as he decided there was insufficient evidence to justify a trial.1

[2] In a minute issued on 20 September 2023, Mander J informed Mr Edmonds that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the District Court under s 26 of the CPA. Mander J allowed Mr Edmonds further time to research the matter and adjourned the hearing for three weeks. Mr Edmonds filed a memorandum dated 4 October 2023 in response to Mander J’s minute.

1 Edmonds v Penno [2022] NZDC 17733.

EDMONDS v PENNO [2023] NZHC 3073 [1 November 2023]

[3]The matter came before me on 12 October 2023.

Background

[4] Mander J’s minute of 20 September 2023 summarises the background to Mr Edmonds’ application to the District Court. From the documents provided, it appears that Mr Edmonds’ dispute with his former partner Ms Penno arises from Family Court proceedings and proceedings in the High Court dealing with the insolvency of companies in which Mr Edmonds and Ms Penno had an interest. Mr Edmonds listed the proceedings in the District, Family and High Courts in which he and Ms Penno (or their related business interests) have been involved since 2018.

[5] Mr Edmonds challenges Ms Penno’s veracity, he contends there is evidence of Class C prescription medication either obtained and/or administered by Ms Penno that requires investigation, and he alleges that her behaviour on other occasions has placed their children, as well as himself, at risk.

[6] Mr Edmonds also provided a memorandum to this Court dated 13 August 2023 asking the Court to approve the release of funds held in the Family Court to fund toxicology testing he says he requires for the evidence in his criminal case against Ms Penno.

Discussion

[7] Before I can consider the substance of Mr Edmonds’ submissions on appeal, I must be satisfied the Court has the power or jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

[8]In his minute of 20 September 2023, Mander J said:

[8] Rights of appeal in criminal proceedings are governed by the Act. The right to bring a pretrial appeal is circumscribed by ss 215, 217 and 218. The decisions listed in those sections from which an appeal may lie do not include a decision by a District Court Judge directing that a charging document must not be accepted for filing under s 26(3). There is no statutory right of appeal from a decision made under s 26. It follows…

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 Edmonds v Penno

Details

AGLC: Edmonds v Penno [2023] NZHC 3073
Case: [2023] NZHC 3073
Decision Date: 1 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Christchurch Registry, Keneth Taipoto Edmonds appealed a decision made by Judge Callaghan under section 26(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which involved the rejection of a charging document that Edmonds had submitted for a private prosecution against Wendy Ann Penno, alleging she attempted to murder him. Edmonds' appeal was based on the assertion that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to reject the charging document due to insufficient evidence, and he sought to challenge the decision in the High Court. However, Mander J had previously ruled that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear appeals from District Court decisions under section 26 of the Criminal Procedure Act, noting that such decisions can only be subject to judicial review. Edmonds was granted additional time to research the matter and subsequently filed a memorandum in response to Mander J's ruling.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the District Court's decision to reject the charging document under section 26 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Edmonds argued that the High Court should hear his appeal due to issues of access to justice, referencing section 15 of the Act and citing S v Vector as authority. However, the court found that S v Vector did not establish a right of appeal where none exists under the statute and noted other safeguards against unmeritorious private prosecutions. The court held that the High Court's jurisdiction to hear such appeals is limited by statute, and Mander J's prior determination that the Court lacks jurisdiction in this case was correct. The court concluded that Edmonds' notice of appeal was a nullity and had no legal effect.

In conclusion, the High Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the District Court's decision concerning the charging document. The court agreed with Mander J that there is no statutory right of appeal from a decision made under section 26 of the Criminal Procedure Act and that such decisions are only subject to judicial review. The court further noted that the notice of appeal filed by Edmonds was of no legal effect and a nullity. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the District Court stood.

Orders