Ferri v Police - [2018] NZCA 181

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA583/2017
[2018] NZCA 181

BETWEEN	CHRIS MATTHEW FERRI AND KARLA WHITE Applicants
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	French, Ellis and Woolford JJ
Counsel:	Applicants in person K Peirse-O’Byrne for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	5 June 2018 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time is granted.
BThe application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Woolford J)

Introduction

Mr Ferri and Ms White were found guilty of disorderly behaviour[1] following a five-day judge-alone trial before Judge Roberts in the District Court at Kaikohe on 1 March 2017.[2] Mr Ferri was found guilty of a further charge of wilful damage. Mr Ferri was sentenced to 80 hours’ community work and ordered to pay reparation of $522.41. Fines of $1,322 were remitted as part of the sentencing process. Ms White was sentenced to 40 hours’ community work.[3]
[1]Summary Offences Act 1981, s 3.
[2]New Zealand Police v Ferri [2017] NZDC 4550.
[3]New Zealand Police v Ferri [2017] NZDC 4335.
In the High Court, Hinton J dismissed an appeal against conviction, but allowed an appeal against sentence. Mr Ferri’s sentence of community work was reduced to 40 hours’ community work, while Ms White’s sentence of community work was replaced with a fine of $250.[4]
[4]White v New Zealand Police [2017] NZHC 1983.
Mr Ferri and Ms White now seek leave to bring a second appeal against conviction. The application was filed out of time. We grant the necessary extension as the delay was not long and the Crown did not indicate it opposed the extension.

Test to be applied

To grant leave, we must be satisfied that the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance, such as an issue of “general principle or of general importance in the administration of the criminal law by the Courts”,[5] or that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.[6]

Factual background

[5]Keenan v R [2005] NZSC 63 at [5]; cited in McAllister v R [2014] NZCA 175, [2014] 2 NZLR 764 at [36].

[6]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 237(3) and 253(3).

Mr Ferri and Ms White were involved in a prolonged incident outside the Paihia Police Station in the very early hours of Christmas Day 2015, during the course of which they shouted at the police officers inside the building and other people standing nearby. One of the neighbours threatened violence against them because of the noise they were making. Mr Ferri also kicked the front door to the police station, causing the glass panel to break.
The catalyst was apparently the arrest earlier that evening of the boyfriend of Ms White’s daughter.

Discussion

Mr Ferri and Ms White seek leave to bring a second appeal on the ground that the Courts of New Zealand have no jurisdiction:
The New Zealand Governments and its judicial system are enforcing…

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 Ferri v Police

Details

AGLC: Ferri v Police [2018] NZCA 181
Case: [2018] NZCA 181
Decision Date: 5 June 2018 at 10.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ferri and White applied to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand to extend the time in which to bring a second appeal against their convictions for disorderly behaviour and, alternatively, to grant leave to bring that second appeal. The appeal was brought out of time. The applicants argued that the Courts of New Zealand had no jurisdiction and asked for the conviction and sentence to be quashed, with an apology and costs of $300,000. The Court of Appeal found that the applicants' claims of lack of jurisdiction were without merit. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty was of general or public importance, but the Courts of New Zealand could not be challenged on the grounds that the sovereignty of the people of New Zealand had been usurped. The Court granted the extension of time, but declined the application for leave to bring a second appeal as there was no matter of general or public importance that would justify a second appeal and no indication of a miscarriage of justice.

Orders