Peters v Police

[2013] NZHC 884

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-404-275 [2013] NZHC 884

BETWEEN  CHRISTOPHER JOHN NEALE PETERS Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

CRI-2012-404-167

AND BETWEEN            CHRISTOPHER JOHN NEALE PETERS Appellant

ANDAUCKLAND TRANSPORT Respondent

Hearing:         17 April 2013 (via teleconference) Appearances: Appellant in Person

R Thomson for Respondent New Zealand Police

S Masoud-Ansari for Respondent Auckland Transport

Judgment:      24 April 2013

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J [Application for leave to appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 April 2013 at 4:00 pm

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

R Thomson, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R M Grapes/S Masoud-Ansari, Simpson Grierson, Auckland

C J N Peters, PO Box 122, Thames 3540

PETERS V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC AK CRI-2012-404-275 [24 April 2013]

Introduction

[1]      On  11  May  2012  the  applicant,  Mr  Peters,  was  sentenced  to  40 hours community work in the District Court.  This was in substitution for unpaid fines relating to two separate offences:

(a)       using an unlicensed motor vehicle – an offence prosecuted by the

New Zealand Police (CRI-2012-404-275);

(b)      operating an unlicensed vehicle – an offence prosecuted by Auckland

Transport (CRI-2012-404-167).

[2]      Mr Peters’ appeal in relation to his conviction and sentence in respect of these two  offences  was  heard  before  me  on  3  September  2012.    I delivered  an  oral judgment in Peters v Police1  on that date and delivered my reserved judgment in

Peters v Auckland Transport2 on 6 September 2012.  I dismissed Mr Peters’ appeals.

My judgments had the combined effect of upholding his sentence of community work.

[3]      Mr Peters, who appears in person, now seeks leave to appeal both of those judgments to the Court of Appeal.  Although he has only filed a Notice of Appeal in respect of the Auckland Transport decision, Mr Peters has confirmed orally that he wishes to appeal both judgments.  Counsel for New Zealand Police had no objection to my proceeding accordingly.

[4]      The issues I must decide are whether Mr Peters’ application is out of time and, if it is not (or if I am willing to waive any non-compliance) whether he meets the statutory threshold for obtaining leave to appeal.

Approach to leave application

[5]      The decision of the High Court on a general appeal under the Summary

Proceedings Act 1957 (“Act”) is final,3 except where an appeal is brought against the

1      Peters v Police [2012] NZHC 2263.

2      Peters v Auckland Transport [2012] NZHC 2265.

3      s 121(7), Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

determination of the High Court on a question of law.4    The High Court may grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal if, in the opinion of that Court, the question of law is involved in the appeal is 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 determination.5

[6]      In R v Slater6 the Court of Appeal observed that:

Section 144 was not intended to provide a second tier of appeal from decisions of the District Court in proceedings under the Summary Proceedings Act ... 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.

Leave application is out of time

[7]      Both Auckland Transport and the Police opposed Mr Peters’ appeal (in part) on the basis that his application was filed significantly out of time.  Under s 144 of the Act his application had to be filed within 21 days of the High Court’s determination (that is, by 24 September 2012 in respect of the New Zealand Police judgment and 27 September 2012 in respect of the Auckland Transport judgment).7

[8]      Mr Peters said that, as a lay litigant, he was not aware of any time limits. Further, he says that his appeal was in time because, although the Court records indicate that the two judgments were posted to Mr Peters on 6 September 2012, he did not actually receive them until 26 November 2012.  Mr Peters says that he then posted his Notice of Appeal to the Court on 17 December 2012, via DX, which would have been within the 21 day period.  That Notice never arrived however.  The Notice of Appeal on the Court file is one which was filed personally by Mr Peters on

5 February 2013.

[9]      I am somewhat sceptical regarding Mr Peters’ explanations for the time delay.

It seems inherently unlikely that it would firstly take New Zealand post two and a half months to deliver the judgments, and then that Mr Peters Notice of Appeal

4      s 144 (1).

5      s 144(2).

6      R v Slater [1997] 1 NZLR 211 (CA) at 215.

7      s 144(3).

would also then go missing in the DX system.  Nevertheless, given that Mr Peters is a lay litigant, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and not dismiss his application for leave solely on procedural grounds.

Substantive merits of appeal

[10]     The grounds of appeal raised by Mr Peters appear to be essentially that:

(a)      he posed no danger to the public safety while driving an unlicensed vehicle;

(b)he has now paid the vehicle licence fees and accordingly it would be unfair if he had to pay the outstanding fines also; and

(c)      rather than substituting a sentence of community work the District Court should have simply cancelled the fines because of the fairness issue raised in (b) and also in recognition of the fact that Mr Peters suffers genuine financial hardship and should not have to perform community work as if he were a “common criminal.”

[11]     None of these matters raise questions of law.   Nor are they of general or public importance. There is no other reason to grant leave to appeal.

Result

[12]    The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Katz J