Forrest v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2014] NZHC 1205

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-000108 [2014] NZHC 1205

BETWEEN

JESSE WAIARIKI TEMANAVA

BUTLER Applicant

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL on behalf of the NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	No appearance by Applicant No appearance by Respondent
Judgment:	30 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

[on application for leave to appeal to Court of Appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 30 May 2014 at 3.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

BUTLER v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZHC 1205 [30 May 2014]

[1]      The applicant, Jesse Butler, is charged with threatening to kill and assault which arise out of an incident on 17 February 2014 when an attempt was made to serve him with  a trespass notice, trespassing him from the premises at Massey University. These charges are due to be heard in the North Shore District Court.

[2]      Mr Butler subsequently brought  civil  proceedings  against  the  Police  and Massey University claiming racism, cruelty, torture and malfeasance.   This proceeding has been filed in the High Court at Auckland.

[3]      On 5 May 2014, I dealt with an application by Mr Butler to transfer the criminal charges to the High Court at Auckland for hearing together with the civil claim alleging racism, cruelty, torture and malfeasance and for an order from the High Court striking out the charges as being unlawful.  Mr Butler applied to the High Court by way of statement of claim in the Court’s civil jurisdiction citing High Court rule 5.64 and ss 43, 44 and 45 of the District Courts Act 1947.

[4]      In my minute dated 5 May 2014, I noted that any application to transfer the District Court criminal charges to the High Court should not be made in the civil jurisdiction, but rather by filing an originating application under s 70 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.   Rather than strike out the application for transfer made by Mr Butler, I directed the registry to reconfigure the proceeding as an originating criminal application, to be listed in the criminal callover at 9.00 am on Wednesday,

14 May 2014.   The registry has subsequently reconfigured the proceedings as an originating criminal application and have allocated a new number, CRI-2014-404-

000108, to the application.

[5]      Mr Butler has now filed an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against my decision of 5 May 2014.  He sets out a number of grounds in the application.   The last ground is that he seeks that the criminal proceedings in the District Court be transferred to the Auckland High Court.   The difficulty is that neither myself of Lang J, who dealt with the matter on 14 May 2014, have made a substantive decision on the application for transfer.  The only decision I made in my minute of 5 May 2014, was to direct the registry to reconfigure the application as an

originating criminal application.   The second decision I made was to adjourn the application until 14 May 2014, when it was dealt with by Lang J.

[6]      There are, in my view, no grounds for leave to appeal to be granted as I did not make any substantive decision.  Accordingly, and to the extent that relates to the directions made in my minute of 5 May 2014, the application for leave to appeal is

dismissed.

Woolford J