Paurini v Police

[2014] NZHC 2799

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON  REGISTRY

CRI- 2014-485-74 [2014] NZHC 2799

BETWEEN

SEANN SHAUN CHARLES PAUL

WAKELIN PAURINI Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	11 November 2014
Counsel:	Appellant in person G A Kelly for Respondent
Judgment:	11 November 2014

JUDGMENT OF MACKENZIE J

I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is

4.30 pm on the 11th day of November 2014.

Solicitors:           Crown Solicitor, Wellington. Copy to:           Mr Paurini

PAURINI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2799 [11 November 2014]

[1]      Mr Paurini was found guilty of an infringement offence, failing to drive as far as practicable entirely within a lane, following a hearing before Justices of the Peace in the District Court at Wellington on 13 June 2014.

[2]       On 17 June, he filed a notice of appeal in the District Court, together with a supporting letter.  While the notice of appeal was on the old form, under s 116 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, it was an appeal to be heard by a District Court Judge under s 230(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act).  Mr Paurini says that he was told in a communication from the Court that he had the right to appear and  make  submissions  in  person,  or  he  could  present  a  written  submission  by

22 August 2014.  He provided a written submission dated 11 August 2014.

[3]      The  appeal  was  called  on  29 August 2014.    The  police  prosecutor  knew nothing about the matter, other than it was an appeal.  There was no appearance by the appellant. The judge struck the appeal out for non-appearance.

[4]      Mr Paurini appeals to this Court.  He asks that the matter be remitted to the

District Court for his appeal to be heard.

[5]      Ms Kelly for the respondent in her helpful submissions notes that as this is a second appeal, leave is required and that under s 237 of the Act, that may not be granted unless the Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance or a miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur unless the appeal is heard.  She submits that if leave to appeal is granted, this Court could address the merits.  She submits, on the merits, the appeal should be dismissed.

[6]      I am satisfied that the matter should be remitted to the District Court.  It is apparent that Mr Paurini wished to have his written submissions considered on the appeal, and that they were not.  He is entitled to have his appeal considered on the merits in that Court.

[7]      In the circumstances the conditions of s 237(2)(b) are satisfied.  I grant leave to appeal.     The  appeal  is  allowed  and  the  matter is,  pursuant  to  ss 241(2) and

233(3)(e) of the Act, remitted to the District Court for rehearing.

“A D MacKenzie J”