Sarandovs v Police

[2014] NZHC 1245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-000327 [2014] NZHC 1245

BETWEEN

ARTJOMS SARANDOVS

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	5 June 2014
Appearances:	Applicant in Person T Hu for Respondent
Judgment:	5 June 2014

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL

Solicitors:           Meredith Connell, Auckland

Copy to:            Applicant

SARANDOV v NZ POLICE [2014] NZHC 1245 [5 June 2014]

[1]      Mr Sarandovs, the applicant, seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation  to  a  decision  of  this  Court  declining  his  appeal  against  the  entry of  a conviction on three charges of using a document for pecuniary advantage under s 228(b) of the Crimes Act 1961.

[2]      On  the  appeal  before  this  Court  Mr  Sarandovs,  who  at  the  time  was represented by counsel, sought to challenge the entry of conviction and argued for a discharge without conviction, primarily on grounds that a conviction would affect his prospects of obtaining residency in New Zealand.

[3]      In support of his application for leave to appeal Mr Sarandovs raises the following points.

[4]      First  he  submits  the  Court  did  not  consider  the  possibility  of  the  visa application refusal by stating the Court was not the appropriate body to consider the case.  Mr Sarandovs believes the Court of Appeal needs to reconsider the issue on the grounds that direct and indirect consequences of the conviction outweigh the gravity of the offending as they will influence his immigration status.

[5]      With  respect  to  that  submission  the  Court  was  aware  of  Mr  Sarandovs’ position  and  applied  well  settled  principles  that  were  summarised  in  Zhang  v Ministry of Economic Development.1   Mr Sarandovs’ suggestion the Court of Appeal should review the matter and reconsider the issues considered by this Court does not raise an issue of law.

[6]      Next,  Mr  Sarandovs  submits  that  he  has  been  advised,  on  numerous occasions,  by  his  representatives  to  accept  responsibility  which  would  help  in seeking the discharge without conviction.  On that basis he says he decided to accept his  responsibility believing  he  had  no  other  choice.    He  says  he  maintains  his innocence.

[7]      With respect to that submission or proposed ground that does not raise an issue of law.  It could not possibly provide a ground of appeal to the Court of Appeal

1      Zhang v Ministry of Economic Development HC Auckland CRI-2010-404-453, 17 March 2011.

against this Court’s decision declining to review the exercise of the District Court’s decision to convict rather than to discharge without conviction.  The fact that despite the conviction for the offending he apparently maintains his innocence suggests he has not yet accepted responsibility, which of itself would not support a discharge without conviction.

[8]      Next,  Mr  Sarandovs  submits  generally that  his  right  to  justice  has  been breached and he seeks reconsideration.   That is a simple general submission that does not raise any identifiable question of law and certainly not one which could be formulated for consideration by the Court of Appeal.

[9]      Finally, Mr Sarandovs notes he has filed an application for legal aid and requests leave on the grounds that he is currently progressing that application.  This Court has to deal with the application on the basis of the material before it.  There is nothing in the papers that Mr Sarandovs has raised which could possibly amount to a question  of  law,  let  alone  a  question  of  law  which  would  warrant  leave  being granted, having regard to the considerations in s 144(2) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

[10]     For those reasons the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal must be and is dismissed.

Venning J