Marteley v Legal Services Commissioner

[2013] NZHC 2748

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2012-485-002525 [2013] NZHC 2748

UNDER  Section 59 of the Legal Services Act 2011

IN THE MATTER OF       an appeal from a decision of the Legal Aid

Tribunal

BETWEEN  TODD AARON MARTELEY Appellant/Respondent

ANDTHE LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER Respondent/Applicant

CIV-2012-485-001314

BETWEEN  TODD AARON MARTELEY Appellant/Respondent

ANDLEGAL AID TRIBUNAL Respondent/Applicant

Hearing:                   21 October 2013

Counsel:                  G K Edgeler for Appellant/Respondent (Mr Marteley via AVL) F M R Cooke QC for Respondent/Applicant

Judgment:                21 October 2013

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J [Application for Leave to Appeal]

[1]      I heard this case on 28 May 2013 and gave judgment on 31 May 2013 in favour of Mr Marteley.

[2]      On 21 June 2013 the Legal Services Commissioner (the Commissioner) filed an application for leave to appeal my judgment. That application is opposed.

MARTELEY v THE LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2013] NZHC 2748 [21 October 2013]

[3]      Unfortunately, the Commissioner’s application has only recently been placed

before me.

[4]      The question of law raised by my judgment concerns the threshold which an applicant for criminal legal aid must satisfy in order to receive a grant of legal aid. That issue is one which, by reason of its general and public importance ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for its decision.1

[5]      The questions of law which I would certify for the Court of Appeal are:

1.Did I err when  I decided that when considering the interests of justice under s 8(1)(c)(ii) of the Legal Services Act 2011, the requirements of s 8(2)(a)(viii) of the Act are satisfied if the grounds of appeal set out by an applicant for criminal legal aid disclose matters which, if established, would be capable of leading to the appeal being allowed?

2.Did I err when I decided that the Commissioner erred when failing to take into account factors set out in paragraphs [55]-[57] of my judgment?

D B Collins J

Solicitors:

Nat Dunning, Wellington for Appellant

Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Wellington for Respondent

1      Legal Services Act 2011, s 60; Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 144.