Elliot v Police - [2025] NZCA 129

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA827/2024
[2025] NZCA 129

BETWEEN	STEPHEN RANIERA RANGI ELLIOT Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	Campbell, Dunningham and Harvey JJ
Counsel:	P N Ross for Applicant K B Bell and B So for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	30 April 2025 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

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

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Dunningham J)

Following a Judge‑alone trial, the applicant, Stephen Elliot, was found guilty of one charge of theft over $1,000.[1] He was ordered to serve a community‑based sentence and pay $5,000 in reparation to the victim.[2]
[1]Police v Elliot [2024] NZDC 1260 [District Court verdict judgment].
[2]Police v Elliot [2024] NZDC 18522.
Mr Elliot appealed his conviction to the High Court, alleging the police failed to provide full disclosure and the trial Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence. His appeal was dismissed by Grice J on 4 November 2024.[3]
[3]Elliot v Police [2024] NZHC 3244 [judgment under appeal].
Mr Elliot now seeks leave to bring a second appeal against conviction. In his notice of appeal, he says that both the District Court and the High Court erred in failing to consider “contract law under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017”. Through counsel he acknowledges that this argument was not advanced in the lower Courts. He also says the case should not have been heard in the criminal jurisdiction but in the civil court.[4]
[4]Although sensibly, this point is not pursued in the written submissions filed in support of the leave application.
The respondent opposes the application for leave, saying the criteria for leave to bring a second appeal are not met.[5] The outcome of the trial came down to factual findings made by the Judge. Those findings were available to the Judge and were properly upheld by the High Court on appeal.

Background

[5]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 237(2).

The applicant is an employment advocate who represented the victim in a personal grievance claim against her former employer. He agreed to represent her on a “no win, no fee basis” and, if successful, he would be paid 33 per cent of the settlement funds. That agreement was subsequently changed so that his share was increased to 50 per cent.
The employment dispute settled following mediation and resulted in a $10,000 payout. The applicant advised the victim that as she was on a benefit through Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ), WINZ was likely to stop her benefit and take the whole award of $10,000. He therefore suggested the award be paid to his firm and he would pay her a portion of the award in cash.
His firm, Deco City Employment Law, received the award of $10,000. There were then conflicting documents. First, there was an email purportedly sent from the victim which said that she was happy with the settlement reached but…

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 Elliot v Police

Details

AGLC: Elliot v Police [2025] NZCA 129
Case: [2025] NZCA 129
Decision Date: 30 April 2025 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stephen Elliot sought leave to appeal a second time against his conviction for theft. He was found guilty of stealing over $1,000 from a client following a criminal trial. The applicant argued that neither the District Court nor the High Court had considered contract law principles in assessing his case, which he believed would have led to a different outcome. The Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether these alleged errors constituted a miscarriage of justice that warranted a second appeal.

The Court of Appeal considered the arguments and found that the applicant's claims did not meet the criteria for leave to bring a second appeal. The Court held that the primary issue was whether the elements of theft were proven beyond reasonable doubt, which they were. The Court also noted that the contractual framework for the payment was acknowledged by the District Court, and the applicant was ordered to pay the victim in reparation. The arguments raised by the applicant did not suggest a miscarriage of justice and did not constitute a matter of general or public importance.

The Court declined the application for leave to bring a second appeal. The Court found that the applicant's claims did not meet the criteria for leave to bring a second appeal, as they did not raise any matters of general or public importance or suggest that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The Court also noted that the District Court had properly considered the contractual framework for the payment, and the applicant was ordered to pay the victim in reparation.

Orders