KATHERINE LOUISE NICHOLLS AND THE KING

[2025] NZCA 58

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA296/2024
 [2025] NZCA 58

BETWEEN	KATHERINE LOUISE NICHOLLS Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Palmer, Peters and Edwards JJ
Counsel:	No Appearance for Applicant J A A Mara for Respondent
Judgment:  (On the papers)	19 March 2025 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for an extension of time is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Edwards J)

1. Ms Nicholls was convicted of several charges following a jury trial in the District Court at Manukau in 2019.  She also pleaded guilty to three charges.  On 4 August 2020, she was sentenced to 14 months’ intensive supervision.[1]  Ms Nicholls applies for an extension of time to appeal her convictions. 

   [1]R v Nicholls [2024] NZDC 14703 at [5].

2. Ms Nicholls had legal representation at trial but does not have representation in this Court.  She has not filed any written submissions in support of her application, despite several reminders from the Court to do so.  We have determined the application for leave based on the papers before the Court.  Those include a comprehensive notice of appeal, Ms Nicholls’ affidavit, and the respondent’s written submissions filed in opposition to the application.

Offending

1. The victims in this case were all former neighbours of Ms Nicholls.  She had been trespassed from several of their properties.  The offending involved entering the properties Ms Nicholls had been trespassed from, damage to property, and threatening behaviour.  It also involved attempting to break free from police in order to get to one of her neighbours and “kicking out” at police when restrained.

2. Some of the charges related to a physical altercation between Ms Nicholls and another neighbour resulting in the latter falling to the ground.  Ms Nicholls stood over this neighbour and made stabbing motions towards her with a screwdriver.  Ms Nicholls then threatened to kill another neighbour and attempted to punch several others (with one of these punches connecting with the jaw).

3. Ms Nicholls faced 11 charges at trial.  Two were dismissed due to insufficiency of evidence.  Ms Nicholls pleaded guilty to three of the charges, with six being left to the jury.  She was convicted and sentenced on one charge each of disorderly behaviour, wilful damage, resisting police, possession of an offensive weapon, assault with a weapon, and common assault.[2]

   [2]At [1].

4. In sentencing Ms Nicholls to 14 months’ intensive supervision, the Judge noted the horrific impact of the offending on the victims.[3]  The Judge said the sentence was imposed to ensure Ms Nicholls got the support she required to reduce her risk of re‑offending.[4]

Legal test

[3]At [2].

[4]At [5].

1. Section 231(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 enables this Court to extend the time allowed for filing a notice of appeal.  The touchstone is the interests of justice.[5]  Relevant considerations include whether the delay is adequately explained and whether there are compelling reasons to extend time.[6]  The considerations relevant to the current application include the strength of the proposed appeal, the length of the delay, and the reasons for the delay.

Should an extension of time be granted?

[5]Ellis v R [2019] NZSC 83 at [15].

[6]At [15].

1. We have considered the material before the Court, including the proposed notice of appeal and affidavit filed in support of the application.  We are not persuaded that an extension of time should be granted in this case.  We reach that conclusion for the following reasons:

   (a)The delay in this case, being four years, is very long. 

   (b)The reasons for the delay are not compelling.  While health concerns may account for some of the delay, it does not explain a delay of four years.  We note that Ms Nicholls elected to make a complaint to the Te Kāhui Tātari Ture | the Criminal Cases Review Commission rather than pursuing her appeal rights.

   (c)Ms Nicholls did not act expeditiously as soon as she became aware of her appeal rights.  Ms Nicholls was on notice in May 2023 that an appeal could have been brought, however, an appeal was not filed until May 2024.

   (d)The proposed appeal lacks merit.  Ms Nicholls appears to raise seven grounds in support of her appeal.  We are not persuaded that any of them establish that a miscarriage of justice has occurred or will occur if the appeal is not heard.

2. The principle of finality in litigation must take precedence in this case.  The interests of justice do not favour leave being granted to bring the appeal out of time.

Result

1. The application for an extension of time is declined.

Solicitors:
Te Tari Ture o te Karauna | Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent