Page v Police HC Dunedin CRI-2011-412-000008

[2011] NZHC 954

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2011-412-000008

PAUL JAMES PAGE

v

POLICE

Hearing:         31 August 2011

Appearances: Appellant in person

R P Bates for Respondent

Judgment:      31 August 2011

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF HON JUSTICE FRENCH

on application for leave to appeal

[1]      Following a defended hearing in the District Court, Mr Page was convicted on  charges  of  assault,  behaving  in  an  offensive  manner,  and  using  offensive language.  He was sentenced to 140 hours’ community work on the charge of assault. On each of the other two charges, Judge Coyle fined Mr Page $250 and ordered him to pay Court costs of $132.89.

[2]      Mr Page was  dissatisfied  with  that  outcome,  and  appealed  to  this  Court against conviction and sentence.

[3]      The appeal was heard by Lang J.   In his decision, Lang J identified the grounds of appeal as being:

(i)Mr Page has been persecuted by a variety of agencies and authorities over recent years.

PAGE V POLICE HC DUN CRI-2011-412-000008 31 August 2011

(ii)      The prosecution witnesses had given perjured evidence.

(iii)The prosecution had failed to call other witnesses who were present at the scene.

(iv)He had been denied a fair trial and had been prejudiced by the manner in which the prosecution was conducted.

[4]      Lang J considered each of these grounds and concluded that there was no basis for interfering with the District Court decision that each of the charges was proved beyond reasonable doubt.  Lang J also found that the sentences imposed were clearly within the available range.

[5]      Lang J accordingly dismissed the appeal.

[6]      Mr Page now wishes to appeal Lang J’s decision to the Court of Appeal.

[7]      In order to be able to do that, he requires leave under s 144 of the Summary

Proceedings Act 1957.

[8]      The application for leave has been filed out of time.  The police oppose my granting any extension of time and also oppose the substantive application itself.

Discussion

[9]      Before leave to appeal can be granted under s 144 there must be: (i)   A question of law.

(ii)The question must be one which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.

(iii)     The Court must be of the opinion it ought to be so submitted.

[10]     It is well established that s 144 is not intended to provide a second tier of appeals from the District Court, and that neither the determination of what comprises a question of law, nor the question whether that point of law raises a question of general or public importance, are to be diluted.[1]

[1] See R v Slater [1977] 1 NZLR 211 at 214.

[11]     The grounds of Mr Page’s application for special leave are summarised in his

notice of application:

Ask duty solicitor also Robert M Lithgow QC.

Applicant submits that counsel at High Court hearing declined to accept full instructions.

Applicant therefore expresses a concern as to whether he had the benefit of full representation and counsel at that appeal.

Whether inadequate counsel may be a question of fact and law and therefore

appropriate for the Court’s consideration.

[12]     At the hearing before me, Mr Page raised a number of other wide-ranging matters, none of which were relevant.

[13]     There  was  no  information  before  me  as  to  the  circumstances  in  which Mr Lithgow  purportedly  refused  to  accept  instructions.    Mr  Lithgow  resides  in Wellington.

[14]     As regards the duty solicitor, I accept Mr Bates’ submission that the role of the duty solicitor is limited to the initial appearance of a defendant at Court, and not for the purposes of fixtures or appeals.

[15]   I am satisfied that none of the matters raised by Mr Page satisfy the requirements of s 144.

[16]     It follows that the application for special leave is dismissed.

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor’s Office, Christchurch

Copy to: P Page, Dunedin