G v Police HC Wellington CRI-2006-485-2
[2008] NZHC 266
•6 March 2008
This case has been anonymized
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
CRI-2006-485-2
C
v
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Hearing: 4 March 2008
Counsel: Appellant in person
C A Patterson for respondent
Judgment: 6 March 2008
JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J
[1] The appellant was sentenced in September 2005 on charges to which he had eventually pleaded guilty including assault, wilful damage, threatening language, resisting arrest, assaulting Police and disorderly behaviour. The District Court Judge’s sentencing notes record that the charges related in the main to an incident that had occurred on 27 July 2003. The Judge sentenced the appellant to nine months’ supervision and remitted $10,000 of fines that were then outstanding, substituting 100 hours of community work. The sentencing Judge provided an indication that a further $7,000 of outstanding fines would also be remitted once the Court was satisfied that the community work ordered to be undertaken had been
completed.
C V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI-2006-485-2 6 March 2008
[2] I was advised by Mr C when he appeared on the present application for leave to appeal that he had eventually entered guilty pleas to the relevant charges only because of the level of frustration at having to attend at the Wellington District Court on a substantial number of occasions to defend the charges, only to be told that there was insufficient Court time, or other reasons why the charges could not be determined at a defended hearing.
[3] Mr C stated that he pleaded guilty on the advice of his then counsel, who is alleged to have advised that he should plead guilty to get the charges out of the District Court, and then seek to appeal the convictions in the High Court on the basis of a breach of his rights under s 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to be tried without undue delay, and to be present at the trial and to present a defence.
[4] The appellant did appeal apparently both the convictions and the sentence to this Court, but it was dismissed on 21 March 2006 for want of prosecution after the Crown opposed a second adjournment. Goddard J added that on its face the appeal had no merit. The grounds of appeal cited by Mr C were:
• I did PD for fines in 2003 and the fines were not withdrawn/copy of printout will be provided.
• Court of Appeal decision (to be provide (sic)); and
• How can a beneficiary pay enforcement fees of $100 on top of a fine, the enforcement agency should provide a time payment, not after it goes to Court.
[5] The present application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was not filed until 22 November 2007.
[6] Mr C explains the delay by claiming that he needed copies of the informations from the District Court file to substantiate his claim of inordinate delay, and breach of his rights involved in the requirement to attend on a very large number of occasions at the District Court, without being able to have the original charges dealt with on a defended basis.
[7] He asserted that he had never been given a satisfactory explanation for the
District Court’s refusal to provide copies of the informations, and suggested that
there was personal animosity towards him among senior personnel in the District
Court Registry for whom he had previously worked.
[8] He claimed that he saw the details endorsed on the informations as critical before he could advance the argument that he ought not to have been convicted in the first place because of a breach of his rights under s 25 of the Bill of Rights Act. He characterised the whole affair as a miscarriage of justice, to an extent that justified the extraordinary extension of time that would be involved, even before the Court embarked on the artificial notion of assessing whether there was a question of law of general or public importance arising out of the High Court decision which it is sought to further appeal.
[9] No explanation was provided for the last 11 months of the delay, when the correspondence on the Court file reveals that in fact the District Court did provide copies of the informations to Mr C by letter dated 22 December 2006.
[10] Although accepting the grounds for frustration felt by Mr C in not being able to have the original charges dealt with at a defended hearing throughout a period of some two years, Ms Patterson’s submissions for the Crown did identify the number of mistaken steps the subsequent course of this protracted saga has taken. Having pleaded guilty on the advice of counsel when no issue appears to have been raised at the prejudice arising from delays in being able to procure a defended hearing of the charges, the conventional course would have been for Mr C to seek a stay of the convictions, in the context of which any attempt to vacate the guilty pleas would effectively have to have established incompetent advice leading to the guilty pleas. If the stay was not granted, then steps could have been pursued in respect of that in this Court.
[11] Nothing of that nature was pursued, and indeed the ground now sought to be relied on under s 25 of the Bill of Rights Act seems to have been raised for the first time in the present application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
[12] I am satisfied that it would be entirely inappropriate to grant the extension of time that would be needed to consider the merits of the application for leave to appeal.
[13] Even if I were wrong in that, then the course the proceedings have taken does not appear to have given rise to a question of law of sufficient importance to warrant the grant of leave.
[14] I note that on this Court refusing leave under s 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, a further entitlement would arise for the appellant to pursue the matter of leave directly with the Court of Appeal, provided that it is done within
21 days of the High Court’s refusal to grant such leave.
Dobson J
Solicitors:
Appellant in person
Luke Cunningham & Clere, Wellington for respondent
0
0
0