H v Police HC Auckland CRI 2007-404-323

[2008] NZHC 524

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2007-404-000323

H

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         On the papers.

Judgment:      16 April 2008 at 12:30PM

JUDGMENT OF ANDREWS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 April 2008 at 12:30pm

pursuant to r 540(4) of the High Court Rules.

………………………………………..

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:           Meredith Connell, PO Box 2213, Auckland

Copy to:
H   Immigration Consultancy, Unit 8, 7A Hill Road, Papatoetoe

H V NZ POLICE HC AK CRI 2007-404-000323  16 April 2008

[1]      On 20 March 2008 I delivered a judgment (“the judgment”) in respect of an “application” by Mr H   (made by a Mr Tuauri on his behalf) for deferment or stay of disqualification.   That “application” had been made following a District Court Judge’s refusal to defer Mr H  ’s sentence of disqualification from driving, pending his appeal against conviction.

[2]      As noted in the judgment, although Mr H  ’s “application” was clearly not in the form of an appeal against the District Court Judge’s decision, I was prepared to treat it as such.

[3]      By a letter to the Registrar dated 7 April 2008 Mr Tuauri (again on behalf of Mr H  ) asks that I “reconsider” the judgment.   In respect of that it must be noted that:

a)        Mr Tuauri has no right of audience as representative for Mr H  .

b)A  letter  to  the  Registrar  is  not  the  correct  manner  of  making  an application to the Court.

c)        There is no procedure whereby a Judge may be asked to “reconsider”

a judgment.

[4]      The only manner in which a judgment, once delivered, may be brought back before the Judge is by way of an application for recall under r 542(3) of the High Court Rules.  It is established on the  authorities that recall is a serious step and may be granted only where:

a)        Since the hearing there has been an amendment to a relevant statute or regulation or a new judicial decision of relevance and high authority;

b)Where  counsel  have  failed  to  direct  the  Court’s  attention  to  a legislative provision or authoritative decision of plain relevance;  or

c)        Where for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled.

See Unison Networks Limited v Commerce Commission1.

[5]      In Unison Networks the Court of Appeal concluded that it is likely to be rare for recall to be appropriate in the third category.

[6]      I have considered Mr Tuauri’s letter of 7 April 2008.   I am satisfied that nothing has been raised that was not either put before me and dealt with in the judgment, or is a matter that could have been raised.    Mr Tuauri’s letter amounts simply to a wish to re-argue the matter.   In any event, any matter not already raised (for example, his reference to the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 would not justify either recall of the judgment or deferment of the disqualification.

[7]      Accordingly, even if Mr Tuauri’s letter were to be treated as an application for recall of the judgment (which on its terms it is not) no basis for recall has been made out.

[8]      There is no basis on which I can, or should, “reconsider” the judgment.

[9]      The “application” for reconsideration is dismissed.

Andrews   J

1   Unison Networks Limited v Commerce Commission CA 284/05, 7 March 2005