Scott v The Queen

[2017] NZHC 1853

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2017-470-000020 [2017] NZHC 1853

BETWEEN

LEWTYN MICHAEL SCOTT

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	13 July 2017
Counsel:	Appellant in Person Richard Jenson for the Respondent
Judgment:	7 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 August 2017 at 10:00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Date:

SCOTT v THE QUEEN [2017] NZHC 1853 [7 August 2017]

Contents

Paragraph

Number

Introduction ............................................................................................................. [1] Background.............................................................................................................. [7] The appeal.............................................................................................................. [21] Issues on appeal ..................................................................................................... [25]

What are the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal late and what merit,

if any, does the appeal appear to have? ............................................................... [27] Is there jurisdiction to determine this appeal? ................................................... [33] Insolvency charges .............................................................................................. [42] Judge-alone charges ........................................................................................... [45] Did the Judge err in disengaging the appointment of an amicus curiae? ........ [49]

Did the Judge err in not hearing submissions on legal representation on

“an ex parte” basis? ............................................................................................... [68] Should a stay of proceedings be ordered?........................................................... [79] Should I recuse myself? ........................................................................................ [85] Result ...................................................................................................................... [92]

Introduction

[1]      The appellant, Mr Scott, faces charges in respect of what appears to be three separate, although interrelated, episodes of offending.

[2]      The first involve his alleged conduct as an undischarged bankrupt. These charges arise out of and relate to allegations that he transferred various assets to a family trust for the purpose of defeating his creditors. Four charges have been laid under the Insolvency Act 2006.   Each carries a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.

[3]      The second category of offending is represented by a single charge of wilful trespass brought under the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980. The maximum penalty is three months’ imprisonment.

[4]      Thirdly, Mr Scott faces two charges alleging breaches of the Bail Act 2000 committed in July 2016. These carry a maximum penalty of one years’ imprisonment.

[5]      On 5 May 2017 Judge J C Harding of the Tauranga District Court directed the termination of Mr R J A Marchant's appointment as counsel assisting the Court. He also refused Mr Scott's request to be heard in the absence of other counsel.

[6]      Mr Scott now appeals those rulings.  His appeal was filed out of time.

Background

[7]      It is apparent not only from the Judge's decision and the limited material to which I have had access but also from the hearing before me that the matters involving Mr Scott have a protracted and complex history. The trespass charge was laid on 10

November 2015, the day after the alleged offending. It is not clear from the file when the Insolvency Act charges were first laid but the Crown Charge Notice alleges offending between July 2010 and August 2011.

[8]      It appears that Mr Scott has elected trial by jury on the Insolvency Act charges. That qualification reflects some level of uncertainty around whether, in fact, Mr Scott

has elected trial by jury, a matter to…