Justin Leigh Harney v NZ Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 94/2009
[2009] NZSC 126
BETWEENJUSTIN LEIGH HARNEY

Applicant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Court:Elias CJ, Tipping and Wilson JJ
Counsel:A J Bailey for Applicant

M E Ball for Crown

Judgment:8 December 2009

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]        The applicant defended driving charges in the District Court on the ground that it had not been established beyond reasonable doubt that he was the driver. He was convicted and appealed unsuccessfully to the High Court.[1] The applicant now seeks leave to appeal directly to this Court against the judgment of the High Court.
[1]      High Court, Christchurch, CRI 2009-409-141, 13 October 2009, Harrison J.
[2]        Such an appeal would raise issues about the interpretation and application of s 45 of the Evidence Act 2006, which governs the admissibility of visual identification evidence. Those issues may well be of general and public importance. Before considering them, however, this Court would want to have the benefit of the views of the Court of Appeal.
[3]        If the applicant wishes to pursue his challenge to the judgment of the High Court, he should therefore seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Before doing so, the applicant should consider the possible implications of the very recent judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v Thomson-Wiari,[2] which was delivered on 27 November 2009 with the reasons following on 1 December.
[2] [2009] NZCA 562.
Solicitors:
Crown Law, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Justin Leigh Harney has applied for leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court against a decision of the High Court, which had dismissed an appeal from his conviction in the District Court for driving offences. Harney had contested the charges on the basis that the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that he was the driver of the vehicle in question. His initial appeal to the High Court was unsuccessful, leading to his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether to grant leave for Harney to appeal directly to the Court against the High Court’s decision, considering the potential broader implications of the legal questions involved. The Supreme Court noted that the appeal would involve the interpretation and application of section 45 of the Evidence Act 2006, concerning the admissibility of visual identification evidence, which could be of significant public interest.

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the potential importance of the legal issues, decided that it would be more appropriate for the Court of Appeal to first consider the matter. The Court reasoned that the Court of Appeal is better positioned to address these issues, particularly in light of a recent Court of Appeal decision in R v Thomson-Wiari, which was delivered shortly before the Supreme Court’s decision. The Supreme Court suggested that Harney should seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, taking into account the recent case law, before any further appeal could be considered. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal directly to itself.

Given the Court's decision, the final orders of the Supreme Court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and Harney was advised to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, considering the recent case law. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of the Court of Appeal in addressing complex legal issues before they reach the Supreme Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established