Erickson v Ministry for Primary Industries

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA584/2016
[2017] NZCA 312

BETWEEN	NOEL PIRIKA ERICKSON Appellant
AND	MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES Respondent

Court:

Kós P, Miller and Brown JJ

Counsel:

T Sutcliffe for Appellant
J E L Carruthers for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

20 July 2017 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 29 June 2017 ([2017] NZCA 271) is granted.
BThe judgment is recalled and reissued to include the following order:
An order is made under s 80I(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002 granting the appellant leave to apply to the District Court for cancellation of the sentence of imprisonment and substitution of a sentence of home detention.

C The judgment is otherwise confirmed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Brown J)

In Erickson v Ministry for Primary Industries[1] this Court allowed the appellant’s appeal against sentence and substituted a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. An application for recall seeking to have this Court address the question of home detention was declined for the reason that any application for commutation to home detention should be made in the District Court with appropriate supporting information.
[1]Erickson v Ministry for Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 271.
In a joint memorandum, counsel now advise that the District Court does not have jurisdiction to hear an application for home detention unless leave of this Court is first granted.[2] A further application for recall is made on that ground.
[2]Sentencing Act 2002, ss 80I and 80K.
We are satisfied that recall is justified in these circumstances. The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 29 June 2017 ([2017] NZCA 271) is granted.
The judgment is recalled and reissued to include the following order: “An order is made under s 80I(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002 granting the appellant leave to apply to the District Court for cancellation of the sentence of imprisonment and substitution of a sentence of home detention.”
The judgment is otherwise confirmed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an appeal by Noel Pirika Erickson against the sentence imposed by the District Court. Erickson had appealed against his sentence of imprisonment, which the Court of Appeal subsequently reduced to 18 months. Erickson then sought to have the sentence further commuted to home detention. The Court of Appeal initially declined to address the issue of home detention, directing Erickson to apply to the District Court instead. However, counsel for both parties subsequently confirmed that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear an application for home detention without leave from the Court of Appeal.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether it should grant an application for recall of its earlier judgment to address the matter of home detention. The Court needed to determine if the District Court had the requisite jurisdiction to hear such an application and, if not, whether the Court of Appeal should grant leave for Erickson to apply for home detention.

The Court of Appeal found that the District Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear an application for home detention unless leave from the Court of Appeal was first granted, as stipulated by sections 80I and 80K of the Sentencing Act 2002. Consequently, the Court granted the application for recall and reissued its earlier judgment to include an order granting Erickson leave to apply to the District Court for cancellation of his imprisonment sentence and substitution of a sentence of home detention. The Court confirmed the remainder of its earlier judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established