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…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Peters v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZHC 884
Decision Date: 24 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Christopher John Neale Peters, sought leave to appeal against the High Court's decisions in two cases, Peters v Police and Peters v Auckland Transport. The appeal pertained to Mr Peters' conviction and sentence for driving an unlicensed motor vehicle, which had resulted in a sentence of 40 hours of community work. The respondents, New Zealand Police and Auckland Transport, argued that the appeal was filed out of time and that the substantive grounds raised did not warrant leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether the application was out of time and whether it met the statutory threshold for obtaining leave to appeal.

Mr Peters argued that his appeal was timely because he had not received the judgments until after the deadline. The court considered his explanation but remained sceptical. However, the court decided not to dismiss the application solely on procedural grounds due to Mr Peters being a lay litigant. The substantive merits of the appeal were then assessed. Mr Peters' grounds for appeal primarily concerned the fairness of the sentence and his financial situation. The court found that these grounds did not raise questions of law or matters of general or public importance.

In light of the above, the court dismissed Mr Peters' application for leave to appeal. The court was of the view that the appeal was not filed within the required timeframe, and the substantive grounds did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in both cases.

Orders