Leef v The Queen

[2019] NZHC 1897

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2019-463-000047

[2019] NZHC 1897

BETWEEN

MARION LEEF

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:	6 August 2019
Appearances:	No appearance by M Leef, Appellant E Collis for Respondent (via AVL)
Judgment:	6 August 2019

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment is delivered by me on 6 August 2019 at 4:30 pm.

.....................................................

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

And to:
Appellant

LEEF v R [2019] NZHC 1897 [6 August 2019]

[1]                 In the sitting today, Marion Leef was scheduled to appear to present her appeal. The Crown is represented and ready to proceed.

[2]When the appeal was called today, Ms Leef made no appearance.

[3]                 Earlier, on 19 June 2019, Toogood J issued a minute in which he gave various directions regarding Ms Leef’s pursuit of this appeal. The Judge recognised at paragraph [9] of the minute that s 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (Act) provides that an appeal Court may dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to comply with timetable or other procedural orders fixed for the appeal.

[4]                 As at 19 June 2019, Ms Leef was in default for filing her submissions. She had not however, at that time, been given notice of the default as is required by s 338(2) of the Act. Accordingly, in the minute of 19 June 2019, Toogood J gave Ms Leef notice that unless she filed and served her submissions in support of the appeal as directed, the appeal would be dismissed under s 338(1) of the Act without further notice to her.

[5]                 In addition to her non-appearance today, I note that Ms Leef took no steps to file her submissions in compliance with the directions given by Toogood J, despite being given notice that non-compliance would lead to the appeal being struck out.

[6]                 In light of Ms Leef’s failure to comply with the directions of Toogood J and her absence at the appeal hearing today, I am satisfied that it is now appropriate for her appeal to be struck out pursuant to s 338 of the Act.

Duffy J