Manga v Police - [2014] NZHC 2785

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-146 [2014] NZHC 2785

BETWEEN
RYAN PAUL MANGA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

Appellant on own behalf
N Whittington and R Gibson for Respondent

Judgment:

10 November 2014

JUDGMENT OF BROWN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 November 2014 at 12 noon, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, Auckland
Copy To: Apellant

MANGA v POLICE [2014] NZHC 2785 [10 November 2014]

[1] In a decision dated 18 September 20141 I dismissed Mr Manga’s appeals against his convictions on 17 March 2014 of escaping lawful custody and injuring with intent to commit a crime, namely escaping lawful custody.

[2] The appellant has now filed a notice of application for leave for a second appeal against his conviction. Such an appeal is governed by s 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 which provides:

144 Appeal to Court of Appeal

(1) Either party may, with the leave of the High Court, appeal to the Court of Appeal against any determination of the High Court on any case stated for the opinion of the High Court under section 107 or against any determination of the High Court on a question of law arising in any general appeal: or against any determination of the High Court on a question of law arising in any general appeal: provided that, if the High Court refuses to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal may grant special leave to appeal.

(2) A party desiring to appeal to the Court of Appeal under this section shall, within 21 days after the determination of the High Court, or within such further time as that Court may allow, give notice of his application for leave to appeal in such manner as may be directed by the rules of that Court, and the High Court may grant leave accordingly if in the opinion of that Court the question of law involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.

[3] The leading authority on s 144 is R v Slater in which the general principle to be applied was stated as follows:2

Section 144 was not intended to provide a second tier of appeals from decisions of a District Court in proceedings under the Summary Proceedings Act. Parliament intended such proceedings to be brought to finality with the defendant having an appeal to the High Court other than when the conditions it has specified in subs (2) and (3) are met and leave to appeal is granted. Neither the determination of what comprises a question of law, nor the question whether that point of law raises a question of general or public importance, are to be diluted.

[4] Accordingly the essential elements which must be established before…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Manga v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 2785
Decision Date: 10 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Manga v Police involved Ryan Paul Manga, the appellant, appealing against his conviction for escaping lawful custody and injuring with intent to commit a crime. The initial appeal was dismissed by Brown J, and the appellant now seeks leave for a second appeal against his conviction. The primary legal issue was whether the proposed grounds for a second appeal involved a question of law of general or public importance that warranted submission to the Court of Appeal. The court considered several points raised by the appellant, including judicial errors, the competency of counsel, the admissibility and credibility of medical evidence, and the relevance of certain exhibits. The court found that none of these issues constituted a question of law that was both arguable and of general or public importance. Notably, the appellant's attempt to raise issues concerning the competency of counsel and the admissibility of evidence was deemed untimely and not eligible for appellate consideration. The court also noted that the absence of certain exhibits, which the appellant claimed was critical, was not significant enough to warrant a second appeal. Ultimately, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The reasoning behind the court's decision was grounded in the statutory framework provided by Section 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The court reiterated the established principles that a second appeal is not intended as a general mechanism for re-evaluating decisions but rather reserved for exceptional cases involving questions of law of significant public importance. The court emphasised that the proposed grounds for appeal did not meet these criteria. The court also highlighted the procedural error of the appellant filing the appeal in the wrong court, although it chose to extend the time for the proper filing of the application for leave. The court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated that the appeal involved a question of law that was both arguable and of sufficient importance to warrant a second appeal. Therefore, the application for leave was dismissed.

Orders