R v Moody CA318/06

The case R v Moody CA318/06 involved an appeal by Richard Allan Moody against a decision of the District Court dismissing his application for a stay of proceedings, an order that no indictment be filed, and an order that no extension of time for filing an indictment be made. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand, comprising Chambers, Randerson, and Potter JJ, heard the application on 29 November 2006. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the application for leave to appeal.

The legal issues revolved around whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to review the District Court's decision and the interpretation of section 345B of the Crimes Act 1961, which deals with the extension of time for filing an indictment. The Court of Appeal determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the District Court's decision dismissing the stay application and the application for no indictment to be filed, as these decisions were not appealable pre-trial. Additionally, the court found that the Crown's application for an extension of time under section 345B remained undetermined, as the District Court had made an error in its decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal due to a lack of jurisdiction. It directed the District Court to complete its hearing of the Crown's application for an extension of time for filing the indictment and noted that the Crown should correct the errors in its application. The Court of Appeal also expressed reservations about the interpretation of section 345B, suggesting that it should not be expanded beyond its proper limits.

The Court of Appeal made orders that the District Court complete its hearing of the Crown's application for an extension of time for filing the indictment and that this judgment and the reasons for it not be published in the news media or on the internet or other publicly accessible databases until the District Court decision on the Crown's application or the conclusion of a trial, whichever occurs first. However, publication in a law report or law digest was permitted.