James Patrick Gollan v The Queen

[2013] NZSC 56

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 28/2013
[2013] NZSC 56

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:	11 June 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal upholding his conviction on two charges of assault with a weapon, and two charges of threatening grievous bodily harm.[1]  He was convicted following a trial by a Judge alone in the District Court.[2]  The charges arose as a result of an incident that took place when the complainants called at the applicant’s house for the purpose of repossessing a motor vehicle.  The applicant has represented himself in all court proceedings.

   [1]Gollan v R [2013] NZCA 29.

   [2]R v Gollan DC Hamilton CRI-2011-019-002337, 17 August 2012.

2. A number of legal issues are raised by the applicant as grounds for the proposed appeal.  The main ones are that the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that there was no basis for him to defend the claim under various sections of the Crimes Act 1961 dealing with defence of property.  He also complains that he had neither legal representation nor adequate legal facilities to prepare a defence at his trial and that the trial Judge had wrongly failed to record in minutes rulings made during his trial.  As well, he contends that certain evidence was wrongly excluded by the Judge.

3. The applicant’s main defence at his trial was that he was protecting property, to which he had a claim of right, from repossession by the two complainants.  The property was the vehicle and other items in his home.  The defence failed because the Judge found the applicant had used unreasonable force in swinging a baseball bat at both complainants in a manner which would have caused grievous bodily harm or death had he struck them.  Only their evasive action had avoided such connection.  For reasons that were fully explained in his reasons for verdicts, the trial Judge preferred the evidence of prosecution witnesses in relation to those matters.  He did not accept that the tape recording by the police of a 111 call made during the course of the incident contradicted that evidence.

4. The general nature of the proposed appeal on defence of property grounds is a challenge to findings of fact by the District Court Judge.  His findings on matters in dispute were principally based on his determinations of the credibility of witnesses giving evidence for the prosecution and defence.  We are satisfied that the judgment of the Court of Appeal on these matters does not raise any significant questions of principle.  The Court of Appeal has already carefully examined the reasons for the verdicts and upheld the judgment of the trial Court.  Nothing in the applicant’s submissions indicates that it is arguable that there was an error in its approach.

5. Likewise we are satisfied that the Court of Appeal’s rejection on the facts of the applicant’s complaints concerning the lack of facilities to prepare his appeal, the failure to make available transcripts of the trial rulings of the Judge and the Judge’s refusal to admit evidence of a police job sheet and a Police Journal article do not provide grounds for a further appeal.  Nor do any of the other complaints by the applicant concerning his trial and appeal.  

6. Overall, there is no indication that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred in this case, or that any point of general or public importance arises.  The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington