James Patrick Gollan v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 28/2013
[2013] NZSC 125

BETWEEN	JAMES PATRICK GOLLAN Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in Person M J Inwood for Respondent
Judgment:	18 November 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Gollan applies for the recall of the judgment of this Court of 11 June 2013 dismissing his application for leave to appeal against a Court of Appeal judgment upholding his conviction on charges of assault with a weapon and of threatening grievous bodily harm.[1]
[1]Gollan v R [2013] NZSC 56.
The principal matters raised by the applicant are that the trial Judge was wrong to find that the victims of the assaults, who were repossession agents, were not trespassers and that rights of defence of property under the Crimes Act were not available. Both these matters, however, were before this Court and considered in its judgment refusing leave.
In these circumstances there are no grounds for recall of this Court’s judgment which is the final determination of issues raised by the applicant concerning his convictions. The application for recall is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James Patrick Gollan sought to appeal against his conviction on charges of assault with a weapon and of threatening grievous bodily harm, which had been upheld by the Court of Appeal. He applied for the recall of the Supreme Court's judgment that dismissed his application for leave to appeal. The primary contentions Gollan raised were that the trial judge erred in finding that the victims, who were repossession agents, were not trespassers and that rights of defence of property under the Crimes Act were not applicable. These issues had already been considered and determined by the Supreme Court in its earlier judgment.

The Supreme Court had to decide whether there were sufficient grounds for recalling its previous judgment. The court noted that the issues raised by Gollan had already been thoroughly examined and decided. The court found no new evidence or legal argument presented that would warrant reconsideration of its earlier determination. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the Supreme Court's judgment was the final determination on the issues concerning Gollan's convictions.

In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that the application for recall did not present any new grounds for review that were not previously considered. The court reiterated that the issues regarding the trial judge's findings on trespass and defence of property had been explicitly addressed and resolved in the earlier judgment. As such, the application for recall was dismissed, and the Supreme Court's previous judgment stood as the final decision on the matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established