P (SC 97/2024) v The King - [2025] NZSC 7

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 97/2024
[2025] NZSC 7

BETWEEN	P (SC 97/2024) Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person A J Ewing for Respondent
Judgment:	28 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 27 August 2024, the applicant filed a notice of application for leave to appeal his sentence[1] following an unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal.[2] The applicant has permanent name suppression.[3] The applicant’s submissions were due on 24 September 2024, but no submissions were filed.
[1]R v P [2020] NZHC 1383 [HC sentencing notes].
[2]P (CA380/2020) v R [2021] NZCA 198.
[3]HC sentencing notes, above n 1, at [78].
On 5 December 2024, this Court issued a minute warning that the appeal would be dismissed under s 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 unless the applicant filed submissions within 15 working days from the date the minute was received by him.[4] A proof of service document was received by the Court confirming the applicant (who is currently in prison) was served with the minute on 6 December 2024. The 15 working day window expired on 20 January 2025.[5] The applicant has not filed any submissions nor responded to the minute.
[4]P v R SC 97/2024, 5 December 2024 (Minute of Williams J) at [3(b)]. Note that s 338(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 only requires the Court to give 10 working days’ notice.
[5]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 4 definition of “working day”.
The applicant’s submissions are now more than four months out of time. Given the assurance that the applicant has received the Court’s minute, we are satisfied that the application for leave should be dismissed under s 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Te Tari Ture o te Karauna | Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

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.

Continue reading P (SC 97/2024) v The King

Details

AGLC: P (SC 97/2024) v The King [2025] NZSC 7
Case: [2025] NZSC 7
Decision Date: 28 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed an application for leave to appeal from an applicant who had previously been unsuccessful in an appeal to the Court of Appeal against his sentence. The applicant, whose name is permanently suppressed, did not file submissions on time, despite receiving a warning from the Court. The court considered the statutory requirement to dismiss the application if submissions were not filed within the specified time, and found that the applicant had not complied with this requirement.

The legal issue in this case was whether the applicant's failure to file submissions on time justified the dismissal of his application for leave to appeal, in accordance with section 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The court found that the applicant had received the warning and had sufficient time to file submissions, but had not done so. The court held that the statutory requirement to dismiss the application in such circumstances was mandatory, and therefore the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal because the applicant did not file submissions within the time limit specified in the Court's warning. The court found that the applicant had received the warning and had ample opportunity to file submissions, but had not done so. The court held that the statutory requirement to dismiss the application in such circumstances was mandatory, and therefore the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the Court.

Orders