McKinney v Police - [2021] NZSC 29

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 30/2021
[2021] NZSC 29

BETWEEN	MARK ANTHONY MCKINNEY Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	A J Haskett for Applicant R K Thomson for Respondent
Judgment:	25 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 21 June 2021 (McKinney v New Zealand Police [2021] NZSC 68) is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

In a judgment delivered on 21 June 2021, this Court dismissed Mr McKinney’s application for leave to bring a leapfrog appeal against a decision of the High Court.[1] In the latter decision, the High Court allowed an appeal by the Police against a decision of the District Court dismissing a charge against Mr McKinney for driving a vehicle while the proportion of alcohol in his breath exceeded 400 mcg of alcohol per litre of breath.[2] The High Court Judge had followed the decision of the Court of Appeal in Solicitor‑General’s Reference (No 1 of 2020), and the objective of Mr McKinney’s appeal was, in effect, to challenge the correctness of that decision of the Court of Appeal.[3]
[1]McKinney v New Zealand Police [2021] NZSC 68 [SC leave judgment].
[2]New Zealand Police v McKinney [2021] NZHC 330, allowing the appeal against the District Court judgment in New Zealand Police v McKinney [2020] NZDC 20169.
[3]Re Solicitor-General’s Reference (No 1 of 2020) [2020] NZCA 563.
The applicant argues that the leave judgment should be recalled and reversed, relying on this Court’s decision in Uhrle v R.[4] He argues that there are three “very special reasons” that justice requires the judgment to be recalled.
[4]Uhrle v R [2020] NZSC 62, [2020] 1 NZLR 286 at [29].
Counsel for Mr McKinney filed a prolix (56 page) submission in support of the application for recall. In that submission, he argued that the three very special reasons why this Court’s leave decision should be recalled were:
(a)the point at issue involved matters of the highest general and public importance, which were understated in the leave decision;
(b)the leave decision misstated the applicant’s legal arguments; and
(c)the Court’s reasons for declining leave were inadequate.
We deal with each in turn.
The applicant makes a number of arguments as to the public importance of the issue that were not made in his submission in support of his application for leave. However, it was common ground that a matter of public importance arose and this was acknowledged in the leave judgment.[5] This is not, therefore, a very special reason for recalling the judgment.
[5]SC leave judgment, above n 1, at [11].
The second point is that this Court is said to have misstated the applicant’s legal argument. In fact the Court well understood the applicant’s argument, but under s 77 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, the Court’s reasons for refusing to grant leave may be stated briefly and in general…

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 McKinney 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: [2021] NZSC 29
Decision Date: 25 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McKinney v Police, the Supreme Court of New Zealand was called upon to decide whether to recall a previous judgment that dismissed the applicant's application for leave to bring a leapfrog appeal against a decision of the High Court. The High Court had upheld an appeal by the Police against a decision of the District Court that dismissed a charge against the applicant for driving with a breath alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit. The applicant argued that the Supreme Court's earlier judgment should be recalled and reversed based on the decision in Uhrle v R, claiming three "very special reasons" for the recall. These reasons were: the public importance of the issue was understated in the leave judgment, the leave decision misstated the applicant’s legal arguments, and the Court's reasons for declining leave were inadequate.

The Supreme Court examined each of these arguments. Regarding the public importance of the issue, although the applicant made additional arguments, it was acknowledged in the leave judgment that the matter was of public importance, and therefore, this did not constitute a "very special reason" for recalling the judgment. The Court also noted that under the Senior Courts Act 2016, the Court's reasons for refusing leave may be stated briefly and in general terms, which meant that the full detail of the applicant's arguments was not necessary in the leave judgment. Consequently, the misstatement of the applicant's legal arguments did not provide a basis for recall. Lastly, the Court found that the adequacy of the reasons for declining leave was not a "very special reason" for recall either, as detailed reasons are not required for leave applications under the Act. The Court concluded that the points raised in support of the application for recall were a relitigation of issues already determined when leave was refused, which is not a "very special reason" to recall the judgment.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for recall, reaffirming that disagreement with the Court's decision is not a "very special reason" for recall. The Court's decision was based on the principles outlined in Biddle v R and Foster v R, which state that the fact that a party disagrees with a decision does not constitute a "very special reason" to recall that decision. The applicant's application for recall was thus denied, and the earlier judgment dismissing the leave application remained in effect.

Orders