Price v The Queen - [2013] NZCA 539

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA382/2011
[2013] NZCA 539

BETWEEN	DAVID JOHN PRICE Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	24 September 2013
Court:	Ellen France, Priestley and MacKenzie JJ
Counsel:	R M Gould for Applicant S B Edwards for Respondent
Judgment:	5 November 2013 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by MacKenzie J)

The applicant was convicted following trial before Judge Callaghan and a jury in the District Court at Christchurch in June 2007 on a charge of forgery. The applicant’s notice of appeal was not filed until June 2011, almost four years out of time. The applicant seeks an extension of time. The application to extend time is to be determined separately from the proposed appeal.[1]
[1]Price v R CA382/2011, 11 May 2012 (Minute of Ellen France J).
The charge of forgery arose out of a dispute between the applicant and his sister over the transfer and sale of a motor vehicle. His sister filed a claim with the Disputes Tribunal over the matter. At the Disputes Tribunal hearing, the applicant produced a document purporting to be signed by his sister. She denied that she had signed the document, and the signature was subsequently proved to be a forgery. The applicant accepted at trial that the signature was not genuine. His explanation was that his sister had deliberately falsified her signature to set him up.
This Court’s approach to applications for an extension of time to appeal was articulated in R v Knight[2] and reaffirmed in R v Lee.[3] The touchstone is the interests of justice in the particular case. The interest of society in the final determination of litigation is a powerful consideration. That must be balanced against the interests of the individual applicant in having the conviction reviewed, having regard to the overall interests of justice. Factors relevant to that balancing exercise include the wider interests of society in the finality of decisions, the strength of the proposed appeal, whether the liberty of the subject is involved, the practical utility of any remedy sought, the extent of the impact on others affected and on the administration of justice, and any prejudice to the Crown.[4]
[2]R v Knight [1998] 1 NZLR 583 (CA) at 587.
[3]R v Lee [2006] 3 NZLR 42 (CA) at [102].
[4]At [99].
The applicant must provide sufficient information on the reasons for the delay to enable the Court to determine whether it is in the interests of justice for leave to be granted.[5] Where the applicant fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the only ground on which the delay could be overlooked is if the proposed appeal is overwhelming on the merits.[6]
[5]R v Davis [2007] NZCA 577 at [13] cited in R v Tohu [2008] NZCA 89 at [24].
[6]R v Latifi [2007] NZCA 372 at [4] cited in R v…

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 Price v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Price v The Queen [2013] NZCA 539
Case: [2013] NZCA 539
Decision Date: 5 November 2013 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, David John Price applied for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction for forgery. Price was convicted in the District Court at Christchurch in June 2007, but he did not file his notice of appeal until June 2011, nearly four years after the deadline. The appeal was to be determined separately from the merits of the appeal itself. The dispute arose from a disagreement between Price and his sister over the transfer and sale of a motor vehicle. Price produced a forged document in the Disputes Tribunal, which was later found to be a forgery.

The Court of Appeal considered the legal issues surrounding the application for an extension of time to appeal, including the interests of justice and the need for finality in litigation. The Court examined factors such as the strength of the proposed appeal, the impact on others affected, and any prejudice to the Crown. The applicant was required to provide sufficient information on the reasons for the delay to enable the Court to determine whether it was in the interests of justice for leave to be granted.

The Court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay was inadequate, and the delay could only be overlooked if the proposed appeal was overwhelming on the merits. The Court was not satisfied that the proposed appeal grounds were strong enough to warrant an extension of time. The Court also considered the impact on witnesses and potential prejudice to the Crown case if the matter were revived six years after the trial. The application for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed, and no further appeal shall be entertained unless leave is first obtained from the Court. The decision was made on the basis of the interests of justice, the need for finality in litigation, and the inadequate explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal.

Orders