R v Craven CA77/05

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of R v Craven CA77/05 involved Mark Albert Craven, who was charged with driving a motor vehicle while the proportion of alcohol in his breath exceeded 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. The District Court dismissed the prosecution, following a High Court decision. However, the police appealed to the High Court, which reversed the earlier decision, leading to the case being remitted to the District Court for rehearing. Craven subsequently sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which was denied. Craven then applied for special leave to appeal to the same court.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the police's appeal was barred by section 108 of the Summary Proceedings Act, whether the High Court had jurisdiction to answer the case stated despite its infelicities, and whether the High Court has a discretion not to remit a case when the case stated is answered in the prosecution's favour. Additionally, the Court considered the delay in applying for special leave.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for special leave, finding that none of the questions met the criteria under section 144(3) of the Summary Proceedings Act. The Court held that the appeal was not barred by section 108, as the appeal went directly to a matter of substantive law. Regarding the infelicities in the case stated, the Court found that the question was clear and that the High Court had jurisdiction to answer it. Lastly, the Court found that the High Court had the discretion not to remit the case, but that the reasons provided by Craven's counsel were not persuasive. The Court also considered the significant delay in applying for special leave as a factor in dismissing the application.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for special leave to appeal, finding that the questions of law raised did not meet the criteria for special leave and that the delay in applying for leave was extraordinary.