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 COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA730/2013
[2018] NZCA 12

BETWEEN	LESLIE MCGEACHIN Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:

Kós P, French and Clifford JJ

Counsel:

Appellant in person
S K Barr for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

22 February 2018 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of judgment is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Kós P)

Mr McGeachin seeks recall of this Court’s decision of 19 November 2015 dismissing his appeal against conviction.[1]
[1]McGeachin v R [2015] NZCA 558.
On 31 October 2016 Mr McGeachin filed an application for leave to appeal this Court’s decision to the Supreme Court together with an application for an extension of time. The Supreme Court declined both on 24 February 2017.[2]
[2]McGeachin v R [2017] NZSC 16.
On 27 October 2017 Mr McGeachin applied to this Court to recall our judgment dismissing his conviction appeal. However, prior to any direction having been given by this Court, Mr McGeachin applied to the Supreme Court to recall its 24 February decision and this Court’s 2015 judgment. On 23 November 2017 we declined to deal with his application for recall given the applications before the Supreme Court. On 19 December 2017 the Supreme Court declined those applications. In doing so it noted that: [3]
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.
[3]McGeachin v R [2017] NZSC 193 at [4].
On 29 January 2018 Mr McGeachin filed a further application with this Court to recall its 2015 judgment, together with voluminous correspondence in support of that application.
In Slavich v R we dealt with a similar application for recall of a Court of Appeal judgment following the Supreme Court’s declination of leave to appeal.[4] In declining the application we noted that:[5]
… it would very rarely be appropriate for this Court to recall one of its decisions where the Supreme Court had pronounced upon it.

And:[6]

This Court’s inherent power to revisit its decisions is exercised only in exceptional circumstances when required by the interests of justice. This is not such a case.
[4]Slavich v R [2011] NZCA 586.
[5]At [4].
[6]At [5] citing R v Smith [2003] 3 NZLR 617 (CA).

In his recall application, Mr McGeachin notes three bases for his recall application: (1) alleged victim perjury and collusion; (2) alleged trial counsel perjury; and (3) alleged Crown manipulation and deceit. He states that his arguments in support of those grounds “are all from my submissions on appeal to this Court of 28th October 2015” and that he seeks this Court deal with aspects of his submissions he feels were not fully addressed in 2015.
What he seeks is to recast and relitigate matters disposed of by this Court in its 2015 judgment, leave to appeal from which was refused by the Supreme Court in February 2017.
This does not meet the threshold for recall stated in [5] of this judgment.

Result

The application for recall of judgment is declined.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leslie McGeachin, the appellant, sought recall of the Court of Appeal's judgment dismissing his appeal against his conviction. The matter was heard by Kós P, French, and Clifford JJ. The appellant, representing himself, filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which was declined. He subsequently sought recall of the Court of Appeal's judgment, but the Supreme Court also declined his application. The appellant then filed a further application for recall, citing alleged victim perjury, collusion, trial counsel perjury, and Crown manipulation and deceit as grounds. The court considered whether the application met the threshold for recall, which requires exceptional circumstances when required by the interests of justice.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's application met the threshold for recall of the Court of Appeal's judgment. The court examined whether the appellant's grounds for recall were sufficient to warrant revisiting the judgment, given that the Supreme Court had already declined his application for leave to appeal. The court also considered whether the interests of justice required the recall of the judgment.

The court found that the appellant's application did not meet the threshold for recall. The court noted that it would rarely be appropriate to recall one of its decisions where the Supreme Court had pronounced upon it. The court also considered the appellant's arguments and found that they were not sufficient to warrant revisiting the judgment. The court held that the application for recall was declined as it did not meet the threshold for recall.

The final orders of the court were that the application for recall of judgment was declined. The court found that the appellant's application did not meet the threshold for recall and that the interests of justice did not require the recall of the judgment. The court also noted that the Supreme Court had already declined the appellant's application for leave to appeal, and it would rarely be appropriate to revisit the judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established