Hall v The King - [2025] NZCA 111

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA797/2024
[2025] NZCA 111

BETWEEN	JAMES LEE HALL Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Katz, Brewer and Gault JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person I A A Mara for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	11 April 2025 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Katz J)

Introduction

Following a judge-alone trial in the District Court, Mr Hall was found guilty of two charges of intimidation.[1] Judge Barkle sentenced him to 100 hours of community work and ordered him to make an emotional harm payment of $250 each to the two complainants.[2]
[1]R v Hall [2024] NZDC 21468 [conviction judgment].
[2]R v Hall [2024] NZDC 24699 [sentencing judgment].
Mr Hall unsuccessfully appealed his conviction and sentence to the High Court.[3] He now applies for leave to bring a second appeal against conviction and sentence. The Crown opposes leave.
[3]Hall v R [2024] NZHC 3371 [High Court judgment].
Mr Hall’s application is two days out of time.[4] The Crown does not oppose an extension of time. The delay is short and causes no prejudice to the respondent. An extension of time is granted accordingly.

Leave to bring a second appeal — legal principles

[4]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 239 and 255.

This Court must not grant leave for a second appeal unless satisfied that the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance, or a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, or may occur unless the appeal is heard.[5] The threshold is high; an appeal is unlikely to give rise to an issue of general or public importance unless it raises an issue of general principle or of general importance in the administration of the criminal law, including one that has broad application beyond the circumstances of the particular case.[6]
[5]Sections 237(2) and 253(3).
[6]McAllister v R [2014] NZCA 175, [2014] 2 NZLR 764 at [36], citing Keenan v R [2005] NZSC 63 at [5].
The Court will be slow to grant leave where success for an applicant would require the court to reverse concurrent findings of fact below. This will be particularly so where the trial was before a judge alone, because the appellant has had the benefit of two judgments giving reasons for those factual findings.[7] The Court will generally be expected to decline leave where the appeal concerns issues that have been thoroughly traversed by the lower courts.[8]

The offending

[7]R (CA176/2016) v Police [2016] NZCA 403 at [26], citing Butler v Police [2016] NZCA 27 at [3] and Warren v R [2016] NZCA 108 at [30].

[8]Wells v R [2015] NZCA 528.

The first complainant, Ms Woodger, lived in the same cul-de-sac as Mr Hall and his family from March 2019 to October 2023. The second complainant, Mr Allen, was Ms…

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 Hall v The King

Details

AGLC: Hall v The King [2025] NZCA 111
Case: [2025] NZCA 111
Decision Date: 11 April 2025 at 9.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Mr. James Lee Hall sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for two counts of intimidation, following a judge-alone trial in the District Court. Hall had previously appealed his conviction and sentence to the High Court, which was dismissed. Hall now applies for leave to bring a second appeal against conviction and sentence. The Crown opposes leave, and this Court must decide whether the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance, or a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, or may occur unless the appeal is heard.

The Court considered the legal principles applicable to granting leave for a second appeal. The threshold is high; an appeal is unlikely to give rise to an issue of general or public importance unless it raises an issue of general principle or of general importance in the administration of the criminal law, including one that has broad application beyond the circumstances of the particular case. The Court will be slow to grant leave where success for an applicant would require the court to reverse concurrent findings of fact below, particularly where the trial was before a judge alone. The Court will generally be expected to decline leave where the appeal concerns issues that have been thoroughly traversed by the lower courts.

The Court found that the criteria for leave to bring a second appeal were not met. There was no apparent risk of a miscarriage of justice. Nor did the proposed appeal appear to raise any seriously arguable issues of general or public importance. The proposed grounds of appeal were largely seeking to relitigate the arguments Hall advanced in his unsuccessful appeal to the High Court. The outcome of any appeal would likely turn on the facts of this specific case. The Court concluded that the proposed appeal did not meet the criteria for leave to bring a second appeal.

The application for an extension of time was granted. The application for leave to appeal was declined.

Orders