Howse v The Queen - [2019] NZSC 99

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 80/2019

[2019] NZSC 99

BETWEEN
PETER ROBERT HOWSE

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Court: Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ

Counsel:

Applicant in Person

J A Eng for Respondent

Judgment:

20 September 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

[1] Mr Howse was convicted in 1999 of an aggravated robbery and associated abduction and sexual offending.1 He was sentenced to preventive detention. He applies to this Court for leave to appeal against that conviction and sentence.

[2] The Crown has found no record of any appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to this offending. Mr Howse’s application therefore seems to be for a first appeal to this Court.

1 R v Howse HC Wellington T No 1944/98, 19 February 1999 (Neazor J).

PETER ROBERT HOWSE v R [2019] NZSC 99 [20 September 2019]

[3] In any event, the Crown points out that there is no right of appeal to this Court against a decision made by any New Zealand court before 1 January 2004 unless all parties to the proceeding agree in writing that an application for leave should be made to this Court.2

[4] The Crown does not agree to the application being made to this Court.3 This means that there is no right of appeal to this Court and the application must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Result

[5] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

2 Supreme Court Act 2003, s 51(2)(d); and Senior Courts Act 2016, sch 5, cl 4(2)(d). See Lundy v R
[2013] UKPC 28, [2014] 2 NZLR 273 at [10].
3 The Crown submits that the appropriate course, if Mr Howse wishes to try to pursue an appeal, would be an application to the Court of Appeal to appeal out of time.

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 Howse v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Howse v The Queen [2019] NZSC 99
Case: [2019] NZSC 99
Decision Date: 20 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Howse v The Queen, the applicant, Peter Robert Howse, sought leave to appeal against his 1999 conviction and sentence for aggravated robbery, abduction, and sexual offending. The case was heard by Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ. Howse, who was sentenced to preventive detention, did not appeal his conviction and sentence at the time, and the Crown opposed his application to appeal to the Supreme Court. The primary legal issue was whether Howse had the right to appeal to the Supreme Court against his conviction and sentence, given that the offence was committed before 1 January 2004, and no appeal was made at the time. According to the Supreme Court Act 2003 and Senior Courts Act 2016, an appeal to the Supreme Court is not possible unless all parties agree in writing. The Crown opposed Howse’s application, leaving the Supreme Court without jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Court found that there was no right of appeal to the Supreme Court and dismissed the application for leave to appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court noted that the appropriate course for Howse, if he wished to pursue an appeal, would be to apply to the Court of Appeal to appeal out of time. The Court concluded that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders