Hynes v Spiller

[2012] NZHC 1502

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-419-25 [2012] NZHC 1502

BETWEEN  PETER ALFRED HYNES Appellant

ANDJUDGE SPILLER First Respondent

ANDHAMILTON POLICE PROSECUTION Second Respondent

ANDCROWN PROSECUTION Third Respondent

Hearing:         28 June 2012

Counsel:         Appellant in person with Michael Main as his MacKenzie friend

S Cameron for Respondent

Judgment:      28 June 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT OF RODNEY HANSEN J

Solicitors:           Almao Douch, P O Box 19173, Hamilton for Respondent

(Email:  [email protected] )

Copy to:            PA Hynes, 68A Takahe Street, Ahipara, Kaitaia.

(Postal address: c/o 15 Ross Crescent, Fairfield, Hamilton)

PETER ALFRED HYNES V JUDGE SPILLER HC HAM CRI-2012-419-25 [28 June 2012]

[1]      Mr Hynes faced trial in the District Court at Hamilton on one count of assault and one of threatening to kill.  He was acquitted.  Prior to his trial, he had filed a notice of general appeal naming as respondents Judge Spiller, Hamilton Police Prosecution and Crown Prosecution.

[2]      It is not easy to discern from the notice of appeal what decision or order Mr Hynes was intending to challenge.  There are two possibilities and he has, in the course of his submissions to me today, suggested a third.

[3]      The first is the decision of Judge Spiller on 8 May 2012 to grant the Crown an extension of time to file the indictment.  The second is a later decision by Judge Spiller declining to vary the terms of Mr Hynes’ bail.  The third, and the decision which Mr Hynes has told me today is the one he intends to appeal against, is the decision to proceed against him in the first place.

[4]      As a result of Mr Hynes’ acquittal after trial, all of the decisions to which he refers – to the extent that they could be the subject of an appeal to this Court – are moot.  There is no basis on which this Court can proceed to hear and determine an appeal on any of these issues. The appeal must therefore be, and is, dismissed.