Pollock v Police

[2012] NZHC 2648

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI 2012-488-0006 [2012] NZHC 2648

BETWEEN  LESLIE GRAHAM POLLOCK Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         11 October 2012

Counsel:         No appearance by, or on behalf of Appellant

T Nicholls for Respondent

Judgment:      11 October 2012

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
Copy to:

Appellant in person

POLLOCK V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WHA CRI 2012-488-0006 [11 October 2012]

[1]      Mr Pollock seeks leave to appeal out of time against his conviction on a charge of assault.  That conviction was entered following a defended hearing before Judge McDonald in the District Court at Kaitaia on 9 August 2011.  In view of the way in which I shall be dealing with the application today, it is unnecessary to go into detail about what occurred.

[2]      The application has been before the Court on many occasions.  Over one year has passed since the conviction was entered.  It was last called before Toogood J on

12 July 2012.  His Honour rehearsed the history of the application then.

[3]      Following a number of adjournments and the intervening instruction and withdrawal of counsel to pursue the appeal, Mr Pollock sought a futher adjournment of the application when it was called before Toogood J.  Acknowledging that not even elemental points on appeal in a form approved by Mr Pollock were then before the Court, the Judge “with some reluctance” allowed a further adjournment on strict terms.  The adjournment was until today at 10am.  Toogood J directed that points on appeal were to be filed and served no later than 5pm on 4 October 2012.  Nothing has been filed or served by Mr Pollock to comply with that direction.

[4]      Mr Pollock has been called this morning on a number of occasions.  The time is now 10.35am.  Mr Pollock has had ample opportunity to attend at Court.  He was warned by Toogood J that if his direction as to filing and service of the points on appeal was not followed, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution.

[5]      In  the  circumstances  disclosed,  the  application  for  leave  to  appeal  is dismissed for want of prosecution.  That too disposes of the appeal that Mr Pollock intended to bring.

[6]      If Mr Pollock were to attend at Court later today, the Registrar shall simply advise him that the application has been dismissed and that no further appearance will be permitted by the Court.

Addendum

[7]      Sometime after I delivered this judgment orally in open Court, the Registrar referred  to me a memorandum received from  Mr Pollock, around 10.46am this morning.  While apologising for the failure to appear in person, he seeks a further extension of the time to file points on appeal.

[8]      Given the clear directions made on 12 July 2012 by Toogood J, the ample time to file and serve points on appeal by 4 October (almost three months) and the Judge’s indication that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution if points had not been filed by that date, there is nothing in Mr Pollock’s memorandum that would persuade me to extend the time further.  My dismissal of the application

and intended appeal stands.

P R Heath J