Murray v Police

[2025] NZHC 787

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-16

[2025] NZHC 787

BETWEEN

NICHOLAS IAN MURRAY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:	3 April 2025
Appearances:	N I Murray self-represented G J Barrett for Respondent
Judgment:	4 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(appeal against sentence)

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

MURRAY v POLICE [2025] NZHC 787 [4 April 2025]

[1]                 Nicholas Murray seeks leave to appeal out of time against a sentence of  seven months’ imprisonment imposed on a charge of threatening to kill1 and a concurrent sentence of two months on a charge of being unlawfully in a building.2 That sentence was  imposed  following  guilty  pleas,  nearly  nine  years  ago,  on  26 April 2016 by Judge B P Callaghan.3

[2]                 Mr Murray is self-represented. His original notice of appeal describes the sentence he appeals against as “prison sentence for unlawfully entering house”. He overlooked the more serious threatening to kill charge. The grounds of appeal are expressed as “was unable to speak during court case making it unfair”.

[3]                 In an email to the registrar dated 22 January 2025 Mr Murray confirmed he intended to self-represent on the appeal and said his aim was to “remove my record so I can do an apprenticeship.”

[4]                 On 20 February 2025 I convened a telephone conference to discuss the obstacles faced by this appeal and the issue of representation. Mr Murray attended the conference. Mr Harvey appeared on behalf of Police.

[5]                 Both at the conference and by way of subsequent minute, I made it clear to Mr Murray that in order to be granted leave to appeal so long after the sentencing, he would need to offer evidence explaining both the delay and why it was in the interests of justice for his appeal to be heard. I advised Mr Murray that he would need to satisfy the Court that there was merit in his sentence appeal. Mr Murray agreed to directions requiring him to file evidence in support of the leave application together with supporting submissions and authorities by 20 March 2025. Mr Murray confirmed his intention to self-represent. Mr Murray assured the Court that he understood his obligation to explain the delay and address the merits of his appeal.

[6]The leave application was set down for hearing on 3 April 2025.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 306(1)(a); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

2      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 29(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $2000 fine.

3      Police v Murray [2016] NZDC 7078.

[7]                 On 28 February 2025, Mr Murray filed two further notices of application for leave to appeal, one for each of the charges. The stated grounds are: “The sentence did not take into account the long term impact on my ability to reintegrate into society via progressing work wise.”

[8]                 A full bench of the Court of Appeal in R v Knight considered the relevant principles for granting an extension of time to bring a criminal appeal.4 The Court said:5

The touchstone is the interests of justice in the particular case. The discretion must be exercised in accordance with the policy underlying the legislative provisions. The feature which provides the reason for the time limit for appealing… is the interest of society in the final determination of litigation. That necessarily carries through as a powerful consideration in determining whether leave should be granted… to appeal out of time. The overall interests of justice in a particular case may call for balancing the wider interest of society in the finality of decisions against the interests of the individual applicant in having the conviction reviewed.

[9]                 In considering whether leave should be granted for an extension of time, the Court said relevant considerations were the strength of the proposed appeal, the practicality of the remedy sought, the length of time and the reasons for delay, the impact on others similarly affected and on the administration of justice (the floodgates consideration) and the absence of prejudice to the Crown.6

[10]             Mr Murray failed to file evidence or any supporting material by 20 March. When contacted by the registrar he confirmed he did not intend filing any further material in support of the appeal.

[11]             Mr Murray appeared at the leave hearing. When asked why he had not filed evidence Mr Murray said, “as far as I am concerned I don’t need evidence.” In oral submissions he said he was trying to progress his life and secure a better job but that with a prison sentence on his record his employment options, especially those through a temp agency, were limited.

4      R v Knight [1998] 1 NZLR 583 (CA), (1997) 15 CRNZ 332.

5      At 587, citing R v Hawkins [1997] 1 CR APP R 234 at [239].

6      At 589.

[12]Ms Barrett opposes the granting of leave.

[13]             Mr Murray’s motivation to secure better employment is to be applauded and encouraged. I have no reason to doubt that he has made significant progress in the years since he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and that he is a changed man, willing to work hard and prove himself. But he has failed to offer any evidence that might explain the delay, such that the Court might consider it in the interests of justice to hear an appeal so many years after the event. Nor has he offered any evidence as to the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

[14]             Sentences can rarely be revisited many years after the event on the grounds the sentence (or conviction) is continuing to negatively impact the defendant’s life. That Mr Murray’ employment aspirations have changed does not provide a principled basis to hear an appeal against a sentence imposed in 2016.

[15]             Having regard to the factors discussed in Knight, Mr Murray has fallen well short of establishing grounds for leave to appeal to be granted.

[16]Leave is declined. The appeal is dismissed.

...................................................

Eaton J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors, Christchurch

Copy to:
N I Murray