Pollock v Police

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Pollock v Police, the appellant, Leslie Graham Pollock, sought leave to appeal out of time against his conviction for assault, which was entered after a defended hearing in the District Court at Kaitaia on 9 August 2011. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution by Heath J in the High Court of New Zealand at Whangarei, following several adjournments and the appellant's failure to comply with a previous direction to file and serve points on appeal by 5pm on 4 October 2012. The appellant did not appear in person or via counsel and did not provide any points on appeal as directed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's application for leave to appeal out of time should be granted, and if not, whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court had to consider the appellant's repeated failure to comply with directions to file and serve points on appeal despite ample opportunity to do so, and the previous warnings given by Toogood J that the appeal would be dismissed if points were not filed by 4 October 2012. The court also had to consider whether the appellant's memorandum, received after the oral judgment was delivered, provided any valid reason to extend the time further.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal out of time for want of prosecution, finding that the appellant had not complied with the clear directions made by Toogood J on 12 July 2012. The court noted that the appellant had been given almost three months to file and serve points on appeal and had been warned that the appeal would be dismissed if points were not filed by 4 October 2012. The court found that there was nothing in the appellant's memorandum that would persuade it to extend the time further. The dismissal of the application also disposed of the appeal that the appellant intended to bring. The court made it clear that if the appellant were to attend at court later that day, the Registrar would advise him that the application had been dismissed and that no further appearance would be permitted by the court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established