Muraahi v The King
[2023] NZCA 586
•22 November 2023 at 2.30 pm
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA536/2022 [2023] NZCA 586 |
| BETWEEN | BENNY MILES MURAAHI |
| AND | THE KING |
| Court: | French, Courtney and Katz JJ |
Counsel: | Applicant in Person |
Judgment: | 22 November 2023 at 2.30 pm |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe application for extension of time to appeal is declined.
BThe application for bail pending appeal is declined.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Courtney J)
This judgment deals with Mr Muraahi’s application to extend time to appeal and his application for bail pending appeal. The matter has had a very unsatisfactory history, but it is unnecessary to traverse it in detail. What follows is a brief summary.[1]
[1]The background is set out in more detail in Muraahi v R CA536/2022, 17 August 2023.
In October 2022 Mr Muraahi filed a notice of appeal in respect of a sentence imposed in March 2020, and also filed an application for bail pending appeal.
In a minute dated 13 October 2022, Miller J noted that the bail application did not include “nearly enough” information and noted some of the reasons that it would be difficult for Mr Muraahi to obtain bail.[2] The Judge encouraged Mr Muraahi to consider the matter further and talk to his lawyer, then to advise the Registrar whether he wished to proceed with the application. Mr Muraahi took no steps to advance the application.
[2]Muraahi v R CA536/2022, 13 October 2022.
Mr Muraahi’s proposed ground of appeal was that his personal circumstances had not been properly considered. He indicated that he was seeking an extension of time to bring the appeal. The only ground identified in support of such application was the fact that the three strikes law had been repealed. Mr Muraahi was advised that the application for extension of time would be determined separately from the appeal, and on the papers.[3]
[3]Muraahi v R CA536/2022, 1 February 2023.
Initially Mr Muraahi was represented by Mr de Groot on a legal aid grant. The grant was subsequently withdrawn and in March 2023 Mr de Groot was granted leave to withdraw on the basis that Mr Muraahi wished to advance the application himself. Notwithstanding that indication, Mr Nabney was assigned to act on an interim legal aid grant.
In June 2023 Mr Nabney sought leave to withdraw on the basis that he did not consider there were grounds for an appeal and that he had advised Mr Muraahi and the Legal Services Agency of his view.
On 30 June 2023 Mr Muraahi was directed to advise the Court within 10 working days whether he wished to pursue his application for an extension of time to appeal his sentence.[4] Mr Muraahi took no steps.
[4]Muraahi v R CA536/2022, 30 June 2023.
On 17 August Mr Muraahi was directed to file a particularised application for extension of time to appeal and a particularised notice of appeal within 10 working days. He was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, it was this Court’s intention to dismiss the appeal pursuant to s 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
Mr Muraahi has not complied with this formal notice. No reasonable explanation for the continuing default has been provided.
We have therefore decided to decline the application for extension of time to appeal which effectively disposes of the appeal. This decision means that the issue of bail pending appeal falls away. In these circumstances, the bail application is declined.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office | Te Tari Ture o te Karauna, Wellington for Respondent
0
0