Legal Research
Cases
R v Meyrick

R v Meyrick

Case [2008] NZCA 45 5 March 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA513/04
[2008] NZCA 45
THE QUEEN
v
MICHAEL BRIAN MEYRICK
Court:William Young P, Chambers and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:Applicant in Person

N P Chisnall for Crown

Judgment (On the Papers): 5 March 2008 at 11am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPLICATION FOR COSTS IS DISMISSED.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by William Young P)
Introduction
[1]       Mr Michael Meyrick appealed successfully against conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice, contrary to s 117(e) of the Crimes Act 1961: see R v Meyrick CA513/04 14 June 2005. He now seeks costs.
[2]       Mr Meyrick appeared for himself in support of his appeal. At that time he was on the roll of barristers and solicitors but did not hold a current practising certificate. For reasons we will shortly give, the consequence is that this Court does not have jurisdiction to award him costs. Before we explain why, we should set out briefly the background to the application.
Background
[3]       The charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice arose out of events which occurred in September 2003. At that time, the police were investigating Mr Meyrick for suspected possession of material in contravention of s 131(1) of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. The material in question was on the hard drive of a computer which, to the knowledge of Mr Meyrick, was in the possession of the police. But the computer tower in which the hard drive had previously been located was in the possession of Mr Meyrick’s daughter.
[4]       At a time when the police were about to execute a search warrant authorising them to uplift the computer tower, Mr Meyrick retrieved it from his daughter. The case for the Crown was that he did this with a view to interfering with the police investigation. Mr Meyrick was aware of the police interest in the computer tower but there was no direct evidence indicating that he was aware of the search warrant.
[5]       Mr Meyrick was tried in October 2004 and found guilty.
[6]       The judgment of this Court allowing his appeal focused on the reasons given by the trial Judge for finding Mr Meyrick guilty. There was no finding that Mr Meyrick was aware that the police had a search warrant addressed to the computer tower. Further, the Crown had not attempted to demonstrate that the computer tower did have (or could have had) any evidential significance. As well, Mr Meyrick had not been challenged on his assertion that he believed the computer tower did not have evidential significance and the Judge made no explicit finding against him on this point.
[7]       This Court’s judgment allowing the conviction appeal concluded in this way:
[54]     We direct a re-trial. We suggest, however, that those responsible for this prosecution give serious consideration to whether the underlying criminality associated with the conduct of the appellant (assuming there was criminality) is sufficient to warrant the expense and anxiety of a…

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 R v Meyrick

Details

AGLC: R v Meyrick [2008] NZCA 45
Case: [2008] NZCA 45
Decision Date: 5 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Meyrick, Michael Brian Meyrick sought costs after successfully appealing his conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice. The background of the case involved a police investigation into the possession of material in contravention of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. The appeal was successful, and the Court of Appeal suggested that the prosecution consider whether the underlying criminality warranted a retrial. After the appeal, Mr Meyrick resumed his practice as a lawyer. However, he did not renew his practising certificate when it expired, leading to the current issue regarding costs.

The legal issues that the Court of Appeal had to decide were whether Mr Meyrick, a self-represented litigant and former practising lawyer, was entitled to costs under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967. The Court considered the general rule that self-represented litigants are entitled to recover disbursements but not costs, with an exception for practising lawyers. The Court examined relevant cases and statutory provisions to determine the scope of its jurisdiction to award costs.

The Court concluded that the statutory provisions and general principles did not permit an award of costs to a self-represented litigant, even if that person was a former practising lawyer who was not currently holding a practising certificate. The Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to make an award of costs. Consequently, the application for costs was dismissed.

This decision highlights the importance of holding a current practising certificate to be eligible for costs in criminal cases, even for former practitioners. The Court's reasoning emphasises the need for clear statutory language and the distinction between reimbursement for expenses and compensation for legal work performed.

Orders