France v Police

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA142/2015
[2015] NZCA 458

BETWEEN	MALCOLM DANIEL FRANCE Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:

Wild, French and Cooper JJ

Counsel:

Applicant in person
J E Mildenhall for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

24 September 2015 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

In an “on the papers” judgment delivered on 19 August 2015 this Court declined Mr France’s application for leave to bring a second appeal.[1]
[1]France v New Zealand Police [2015] NZCA 381.
Mr France has now applied for a recall of that judgment on the grounds he objected to the matter being dealt with on the papers, the Court misunderstood the proposed grounds of appeal and the judgment is invalid because the copy he received was unsigned.
The application for recall is dismissed. By virtue of s 329 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, the Court was entitled to deal with the matter on the papers without Mr France’s consent. We do not accept the Court has misstated the proposed grounds of appeal and the fact a copy was unsigned is plainly not grounds for recall.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an application from Malcolm Daniel France against the New Zealand Police. The case, CA142/2015 [2015] NZCA 458, involved an appeal against the Court's earlier decision to decline Mr France's application for leave to bring a second appeal. Mr France, representing himself, sought to challenge the original judgment, contending that the Court had misunderstood his grounds for appeal, he had objected to the matter being dealt with on the papers, and the unsigned copy of the judgment rendered it invalid. The New Zealand Police were represented by J E Mildenhall.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the original judgment was correctly made without Mr France's consent, if the Court had accurately understood his proposed grounds of appeal, and if the unsigned nature of the judgment warranted a recall. Under section 329 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, the Court had the authority to decide the matter without Mr France's consent, and the unsigned copy did not constitute grounds for recall.

The Court found that Mr France's objections did not alter the fact that the Court was entitled to proceed without his consent. They further held that the Court had not misstated the grounds of appeal, and the unsigned copy of the judgment was not a valid basis for recall. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for recall, affirming the original decision. The Court emphasised that the authority to decide the matter on the papers was clearly established by statute and that the procedural errors alleged by Mr France did not justify altering the outcome.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established