Matches v Police - [2020] NZCA 104

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA27/2020
[2020] NZCA 104

BETWEEN	BRENT LEONARD MATCHES Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	Goddard, Mallon and Thomas JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in Person J E Mildenhall for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	21 April 2020 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal is granted.
BThe application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Thomas J)

Mr Matches was found guilty in the District Court following a Judge-alone trial on one charge of stopping another person in a public place with intent to frighten him.[1] His appeal against conviction was dismissed on 20 November 2019.[2] He now seeks leave out of time for a second appeal against conviction[3] on the basis that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, or may occur, if leave is not granted. The Crown opposes the application.

Extension of time

[1]Police v Matches [2018] NZDC 11315. Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(e). The maximum penalty is three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine: s 21(3).

[2]Matches v Police [2019] NZHC 3029.

[3]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 237(1).

Mr Matches’ notice of appeal was filed late but he has explained the delay.[4] The Crown does not oppose his application for an extension of time and we are satisfied it is appropriate to grant that application.

Background

[4]Mr Matches’ appeal was filed in the High Court in error.

Mr Matches had been involved in ongoing Family Court proceedings over many years. He was unhappy with the outcome of those cases and openly critical of the decisions of various Family Court Judges, including those of Judges Ian McHardy and Timothy Druce. On 19 February 2018, Judge McHardy was leaving the Auckland District Court and walking up Federal Street when Mr Matches confronted him, blocking his path and forcing him to stop. Mr Matches addressed Judge McHardy in strident terms, calling him, amongst other things, a “child abuser”. He told Judge McHardy that “they would be coming” to his home. The reference to “they” was understood to refer to Mr Matches’ supporters and others who protest against what they see as injustices perpetrated in the Family Court outside targeted Family Court Judges’ homes.
Judge McHardy described Mr Matches’ manner and tone of voice as “angry”. He was forced to move around Mr Matches to continue walking up Federal Street. Mr Matches yelled increasingly loudly at him as he walked away. Judge McHardy said he was frightened by Mr Matches’ actions in stopping him and found the experience unnerving.
A closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera recorded some of the interaction.
At trial, Mr Matches denied stopping Judge McHardy and said that, when he yelled at him, he was criticising the Judge and protesting a decision made by him as a sitting Judge on an earlier occasion, but he had no intent to…

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 Matches 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: [2020] NZCA 104
Decision Date: 21 April 2020 at 10.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Brent Leonard Matches sought leave to bring a second appeal against his conviction for stopping another person in a public place with intent to frighten him. Matches had previously appealed against his conviction in the High Court, which was dismissed. Matches now sought leave out of time for a second appeal on the basis that a miscarriage of justice had occurred, or may occur, if leave was not granted. The Crown opposed the application. The Court was required to determine whether the application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal should be granted and whether the application for leave to bring a second appeal should be granted.

The Court considered the evidence and found that the District and High Courts had carefully assessed the evidence and addressed Matches' contentions. The Court was not persuaded that a miscarriage of justice had occurred or may occur if leave for a second appeal was not granted. The Court found that Matches' arguments had insufficient prospects of success to justify granting leave for a second appeal. The Court granted the application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal and declined the application for leave to bring a second appeal.

Matches' application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal is granted. Matches' application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.

Orders