Phillips v Police - [2019] NZHC 2330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WAIHARAKEKE ROHE

CRI-2019-406-15

[2019] NZHC 2330

BETWEEN
KATHERINE ANN PHILLIPS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 6 September 2019

Appearances:

Appellant in Person

J W N Cameron for the Respondent

Judgment:

16 September 2019

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] Ms Phillips seeks to appeal her conviction of criminal harassment from April 2000. She unsuccessfully appealed her conviction in July 2000, and now seeks this Court’s leave, 19 years later, to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[2] Ms Phillips was convicted on 17 April 2000 of one charge of criminal harassment at the District Court at Blenheim. She appealed to the High Court under s 115 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 but Wild J dismissed the appeal.1 She now seeks leave to appeal from the High Court decision out of time.

[3] Ms Philips is self-represented. Her grounds of appeal are general. They allege, among other matters, breaches of her fair trial rights and a miscarriage of justice. The Crown opposes the grant of leave to appeal.

1 Phillips v New Zealand Police HC Blenheim AP3/00, 20 July 2000.

PHILLIPS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2330 [16 September 2019]

Relevant law

[4] As the decision being appealed from dates from 2000, the applicable law is the now repealed Summary Proceedings Act 1957. Section 144 of the Act provides:

144 Appeal to Court of Appeal
(1)Either party may, with the leave of the High Court, appeal to the Court of Appeal against any determination of the High Court on any case stated for the opinion of the High Court under section 107 of this Act or against any determination of the High Court on a question of law arising in any general appeal: Provided that, if the High Court refuses to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal may grant special leave to appeal.
(2)A party desiring to appeal to the Court of Appeal under this section shall, within 21 days after the determination of the High Court, or within such further time as that Court may allow, give notice of his application for leave to appeal in such manner as may be directed by the rules of that Court, and the High Court may grant leave accordingly if in the opinion of that Court the question of law 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 decision.
(3)Where the High Court refuses leave to any party to appeal to the Court of Appeal under this section, that party may, within 21 days after the refusal of the High Court or within such further time as the Court of Appeal may allow, apply to the Court of Appeal, in such manner as may be directed by the rules of that Court, for special leave…

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 Phillips v Police

Details

AGLC: Phillips v Police [2019] NZHC 2330
Case: [2019] NZHC 2330
Decision Date: 16 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Phillips v Police, the applicant, Ms Katherine Ann Phillips, sought leave to appeal her criminal harassment conviction from April 2000, which she unsuccessfully appealed in July 2000. She now seeks this Court's leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal 19 years later. Ms Phillips, who is self-represented, alleges various breaches of her fair trial rights and a miscarriage of justice. The Crown opposes the grant of leave to appeal, arguing that the substantive grounds of the appeal cannot ultimately be resolved by this Court but may have some relevance on the decision to grant leave if the threshold for granting leave is met. The court must consider the applicable law, the relevant considerations in Butcher v R, and the grounds of appeal raised by Ms Phillips to determine whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted.

The legal issues the court was required to decide in this case included the applicability of the now-repealed Summary Proceedings Act 1957, the principles governing leave to appeal out of time, and the relevance of the substantive grounds of appeal in determining whether leave should be granted. The court had to consider whether the question of law involved in the appeal was 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. The court also had to assess the strength of the proposed appeal, the practical utility of the remedy sought, the length of the delay and reasons for the delay, the extent of the impact on others similarly affected and on the administration of justice, and the absence of prejudice to the Crown.

The court's reasoning and outcome in this case was that Ms Phillips' application for leave to appeal was filed 19 years after her conviction was first entered. Although Ms Phillips had lodged an appeal in time, which came before Wild J, it was unclear which aspects of Wild J's decision, if any, were challenged by her present leave application. When pressed for the reason for her delay in making her application, Ms Phillips did not wish to advance any reasons, relying on her "fundamental, democratic right to appeal to the Court." The court found that there was no proper basis to examine the allegations of pressure on the Trial Judge, inadequacy of counsel, or the allegation that the Court documents were tainted by illegality in this proceeding. The court concluded that there was nothing in Ms Phillips' submissions which justified a departure from the principle of finality and that it was not in the interests of justice to grant Ms Phillips leave to appeal out of time.

The final orders in this case were that the application for leave to appeal was declined. The court found that the wider interests of society were served by the finality of decisions, and that the liberty of the appellant was not involved in this case. The only practical utility of the remedy sought was the quashing of Ms Phillips' conviction, but that relied on an assessment of the strength of the proposed appeal. The court found that there was no proper basis to examine the allegations of pressure on the Trial Judge, inadequacy of counsel, or the allegation that the Court documents were tainted by illegality in this proceeding. The court concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to grant Ms Phillips leave to appeal out of time.

Orders