Parker v Police - [2025] NZSC 142

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 85/2025
[2025] NZSC 142

BETWEEN	JIMMY REX PARKER Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person M R L Davie and E P C Duckett for Respondent
Judgment:	16 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Parker was convicted in two judge-alone trials in the District Court.[1] The first involved charges of assault and intentional damage to a cellphone. He was convicted on the latter charge. The incident occurred on 22 June 2020 and the hearing was held on 14 January 2021. The second trial involved threatening to injure a person with intent to frighten. The incident occurred on 23 July 2020 and the hearing was held on 17 March 2021.
[1]See New Zealand Police v Parker [2021] NZDC 3403 (Judge Cameron); and New Zealand Police v Parker [2021] NZDC 26180 (Judge Bouchier).
In both cases the charges arose out of ill-feeling between neighbours. In one case the complainant was the visitor of a vacant section next to Mr Parker’s property. In the other, the complainant was a workman engaged to drive piles on the same property.
Mr Parker was self-represented. In each case, he and the complainant gave evidence and the trial judge accepted that of the complainant.
In June 2024, some three years out of time, Mr Parker sought to appeal to the High Court. He was declined an extension of time, principally because he did not adequately explain the delay and there was no compelling reason to extend time.[2]
[2]Parker v R [2024] NZHC 2918 (Jagose J) at [9].
In October 2024, the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal declined to accept an appeal for filing on the basis that the High Court’s refusal of an extension of time was not a “determination of the person’s first appeal” which can be appealed under s 237(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Mr Parker applied for a review of that decision. In December 2024, a judge of the Court of Appeal found that the decision was plainly correct.[3]
[3]Parker v R [2024] NZCA 650 (Hinton J) at [4].
Mr Parker then sought leave to appeal from the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal. In March 2025, Kós J confirmed the Registrar’s decision that this Court lacked jurisdiction.[4] He noted that Mr Parker might be able to file an application for an extension of time and an application for leave to appeal direct from the decisions of the District Court.[5]
[4]Parker v R [2025] NZSC 15 at [3].
[5]At [4].
Mr Parker then brought this application for leave to appeal direct to this Court on 22 July 2025. He has also sought an extension of time for filing.
This Court may hear an appeal direct from the District Court where there…

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 Parker v Police

Details

AGLC: Parker v Police [2025] NZSC 142
Case: [2025] NZSC 142
Decision Date: 16 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jimmy Rex Parker sought to appeal his convictions from two District Court trials, where he was found guilty of assault and intentional damage to a cellphone, as well as threatening to injure a person with intent to frighten. Both charges arose from disputes with neighbours, one involving a visitor to a vacant section next to his property, and the other a workman engaged on his property. The District Court accepted the complainants' evidence over Parker's self-represented testimony. Parker applied for an extension of time to appeal to the High Court in June 2024, three years after the trials, but was refused due to inadequate explanation for the delay and lack of a compelling reason for the extension. The Court of Appeal also declined to accept an appeal for filing, and a judge of that court found the decision was plainly correct. Parker then sought leave to appeal to this Court, which was refused due to the Court of Appeal's decision not being a "determination of the person's first appeal" as required by section 237(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the appeal provisions in part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act barred it from acting as a first appeal court for category 2 offences. The Court also found that it would not have granted leave to appeal even if it had jurisdiction, as the District Court was entitled to prefer the Crown's evidence over Parker's, and there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice in the High Court's refusal of an extension of time. Parker's application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal is dismissed.

Orders