McGeachin v R

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 144/2016
[2017] NZSC 193

BETWEEN	LESLIE McGEACHIN Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, OʼRegan and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in Person
Judgment:	19 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Background

In June 2013 Mr McGeachin was convicted on numerous counts, including ones of physical and sexual violence. His appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in November 2015.[1]
[1]McGeachin v R [2015] NZCA 558.
On 24 February 2017 this Court dismissed Mr McGeachin’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment. It also dismissed his application for leave to appeal directly from the District Court against sentence.[2]
[2]McGeachin v R [2017] NZSC 16.
On 31 October 2017 Mr McGeachin filed an application with this Court for a recall of the Court of Appeal judgment dismissing his appeal against conviction. He also, on 28 November 2017, applied to recall this Court’s judgment of 24 February 2017.

Our assessment

An application to recall the judgment of the Court of Appeal is not an application this Court can deal with. It must be dealt with by that Court.
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment essentially seeks to rely on similar arguments relating to alleged witness and Crown misconduct as had been earlier put forward both before the Court of Appeal and this Court. These arguments have already been fully examined and dismissed.
This means that nothing has been put forward by Mr McGeachin that would justify a recall of this Court’s judgment.

Result

The application for recall is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leslie McGeachin applied for a recall of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgments dismissing his appeal against conviction and his application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The Supreme Court, comprising Glazebrook, O’Regan and Arnold JJ, assessed the application against the criteria for recall. The Court had to determine whether the application for recall was one it could deal with or whether it should have been brought before the Court of Appeal. The Court also had to consider whether there were any grounds to justify a recall of the earlier judgment.

The Court found that the application to recall the Court of Appeal’s judgment was not one it could deal with, as it should have been addressed to the Court of Appeal. The application to recall the Supreme Court’s judgment essentially relied on similar arguments relating to alleged witness and Crown misconduct that had already been fully examined and dismissed by the Court. The Court concluded that there were no grounds to justify a recall of its earlier judgment.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for recall of the earlier judgments. The Court noted that the arguments put forward by McGeachin were not new and had already been considered and rejected by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The Court found that nothing had been put forward by McGeachin that would justify a recall of its earlier judgment.

The Supreme Court made no orders in relation to the application for recall. The Court dismissed the application and confirmed that the earlier judgments dismissing McGeachin’s appeal against conviction and his application for leave to appeal against the sentence remained in place.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established