Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 86/2014
[2014] NZSC 152

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND

JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER
First Respondent

RODNEY HANSEN
Second Respondent

DAVID HARVEY
Third Respondent

Court:	McGrath, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in Person
Judgment:	24 October 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment [2014] NZSC 138
is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Siemer seeks recall of this Court’s judgment[1] dealing with his application for leave to appeal against a decision of White J dated 30 July 2014.[2]
[1]Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2014] NZSC 138.
[2]Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2014] NZCA 358.
The application is advanced on the basis that the Court’s reasoning for its decision to dismiss the application for leave is not adequately set out in the leave judgment.
Section 16(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 provides that the Court’s reasons for refusing to give leave to appeal “may be stated briefly, and may be stated in general terms only”. That is the approach that was followed in the leave judgment.
None of the grounds which would normally justify the recall of a judgment has been identified in the application. It is therefore dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an application for recall from Vincent Ross Siemer against the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and two other respondents. Siemer sought to appeal the dismissal of his application for leave to appeal against a decision made by White J. He contended that the reasons provided by the Court for dismissing his application were inadequate. The case involved the interpretation and application of Section 16(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003, which allows the Court to state its reasons for refusing leave to appeal in brief and general terms.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the reasons given for dismissing Siemer's application for leave to appeal were sufficient under the Act. The Court had to determine if the dismissal of the recall application was appropriate given the circumstances and the grounds presented by Siemer. The Court considered whether any of the grounds that typically justify recalling a judgment were present in this case.

The Court concluded that the reasons provided in the leave judgment were in line with the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003, which permits the Court to state its reasons briefly and in general terms. The Court found that none of the grounds for recalling a judgment were met by Siemer's application. Therefore, the application for recall was dismissed. No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the recall application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established