McGeachin v The Queen

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

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 144/2016
[2020] NZSC 109

BETWEEN	LESLIE MCGEACHIN Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	12 October 2020

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 24 February 2017 (McGeachin v R [2017] NZSC 16) is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr McGeachin was convicted following a jury trial in 2013 for offences of physical and sexual violence committed against two former partners between the late 1980s and 2011.
On 14 September 2020, this Court dismissed Mr McGeachin’s second application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 24 February 2017, which dismissed the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction and dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence.[1]
[1]McGeachin v R [2020] NZSC 95 (Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ) [SC second recall judgment]; and McGeachin v R [2017] NZSC 16 (Glazebrook, Arnold and O’Regan JJ) [SC leave judgment]. See also McGeachin v R [2017] NZSC 193 (Glazebrook, O’Regan and Arnold JJ) [SC first recall judgment].
Before this Court’s decision, Mr McGeachin had made an unsuccessful application to the Court of Appeal for recall of its 2015 decision on his appeal.[2] The Court of Appeal considered the affidavits in the original appeal as well as further affidavits in relation to the recall application. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr McGeachin’s recall application.[3]
[2]McGeachin v R [2015] NZCA 558 (Kós, Fogarty and Mallon JJ) [CA judgment].
[3]McGeachin v R [2020] NZCA 72 (Wild, Whata and Katz JJ) [CA recall judgment].
Mr McGeachin now makes a third recall application in this Court. He also applies to adduce evidence, which he says contradicts the complainants’ evidence at trial and also the Crown’s submissions before this Court in the leave judgment.
A third recall application is not the time to attempt to adduce further evidence. If Mr McGeachin wishes to pursue the matter it may be more appropriate to do so under the Criminal Cases Review Commission Act 2019.
The application for recall is dismissed.
We direct the Registrar to reject any further application for recall with regard to this matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leslie McGeachin has applied to the Supreme Court of New Zealand for a third time to recall the Court’s judgment of 24 February 2017, which dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence. McGeachin’s original appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed in 2015, and subsequent applications for recall of that decision by the Court of Appeal and this Court have been unsuccessful. McGeachin claims that new evidence has come to light which contradicts the evidence of the complainants at trial and the Crown’s submissions before this Court in the leave judgment. The Court was required to determine whether to grant McGeachin’s application for recall and, if not, whether to permit him to adduce new evidence. The Court noted that a third recall application is not the appropriate forum to introduce new evidence, and that if McGeachin wishes to pursue the matter further, it may be more appropriate to do so under the Criminal Cases Review Commission Act 2019. The application for recall was dismissed, and the Court directed the Registrar to reject any further application for recall with regard to this matter.

The Court of Appeal and this Court have already considered McGeachin’s appeal and subsequent applications for recall, and have found no basis to grant relief. The Court noted that recall applications are not an opportunity to introduce new evidence, and that the proper forum for such evidence is under the Criminal Cases Review Commission Act 2019. The Court was not persuaded that the new evidence which McGeachin seeks to introduce would change the outcome of his appeal, and dismissed the application for recall. The Court also noted that McGeachin had already had multiple opportunities to challenge his conviction and sentence, and that it was not appropriate to grant further relief.

McGeachin’s application for recall was dismissed, and the Court directed the Registrar to reject any further application for recall with regard to this matter. The Court noted that McGeachin had already had multiple opportunities to challenge his conviction and sentence, and that it was not appropriate to grant further relief. The Court also noted that recall applications are not an opportunity to introduce new evidence, and that the proper forum for such evidence is under the Criminal Cases Review Commission Act 2019. The Court was not persuaded that the new evidence which McGeachin seeks to introduce would change the outcome of his appeal, and dismissed the application for recall.

The Court’s decision is final, and McGeachin’s appeal against conviction and sentence has been dismissed by both the Court of Appeal and this Court. If McGeachin wishes to pursue the matter further, he may do so under the Criminal Cases Review Commission Act 2019. The Court’s decision is binding on all parties, and McGeachin is not entitled to further appeal against conviction and sentence. The Court’s decision is final, and McGeachin’s appeal against conviction and sentence has been dismissed by both the Court of Appeal and this Court. If McGeachin wishes to pursue the matter further, he may do so under the Criminal Cases Review Commission Act 2019.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established