Siemer v Police

[2019] NZHC 1678

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-404-000424

[2019] NZHC 1678

IN THE MATTER OF

an appeal against conviction and sentence

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:	[On the Papers]
Appearances:	V R Siemer (Self-represented Appellant) in Person Y Y Wang for the Respondent
Judgment:	18 July 2019
Reissued:	9 August 2019

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

[re Recall]

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 July 2019 at 3.30 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:    Meredith Connell (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Auckland

Copy To:     V R Siemer, Gulf Harbour

SIEMER v POLICE [2019] NZHC 1678 [18 July 2019]

[1] By judgment dated 14 June 2019, I dismissed Mr Siemer’s appeal from his conviction for breaching a suppression order under ss 240(1)(c) and 263 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.1

[2]                 Mr Siemer seeks to recall the judgment, or to correct it under what he terms the “errors and omissions rule”. The grounds listed in support of the application are as follows:

1.The Judgment entirely omitted addressing the appeal ground that no evidence was produced which allegedly. [sic] identified [the practitioner] as the person whose identity the Lawyer’s Disciplinary Tribunal had attempted to conceal, in circumstances where this ground and lack of evidence to the contrary provides exoneration on conviction.

2.The judgment at [32] materially confused the Conviction Decision’s summary at [15] & [16]f of the s14 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 “defence submissions” as a rejection of that defence by the trial judge when in fact these paragraphs clearly underscore the trial judge’s failure to address this defence despite recognising it was relied upon. Paragraph [32] of the Judgment is wholly inaccurate on this material point and accuracy requires correction.

3.The Judgment failed to identify any order of suppression made against the world despite the appeal recording the prosecution was unable to identify such an order existed. Crown counse.l [sic] on appeal being unable to do so and the trial judge having failed to do so despite this being a central defence - the trial judge instead making only an obscure reference that the unidentified order was contained in the LDT decision dated 24 November 2016.

[3]                 The Court will only exercise its power to revisit a decision in exceptional circumstances when required by the interests of justice. An application for recall is not to be used simply to relitigate matters that have been brought to a close.2

[4]                 The grounds advanced by Mr Siemer in support of his application are attempts to relitigate matters decided in my judgment. They are matters determined against Mr Siemer, and with which he disagrees. The exceptional circumstances test for recall of the judgment is not met in those circumstances.

1      Siemer v Police [2019] NZHC 1346.

2      Hooper v R [2016] NZCA 6 at [5].

[5]                 Similarly, the nature of the errors alleged by Mr Siemer are substantive in nature. They are not clerical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions. They are not the type of errors able to be corrected under r 1.6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012.

[6]                 Finally, Mr Siemer has since filed an application for leave to bring a second appeal in the Court of Appeal. That is the appropriate route by which substantive determinations may seek to be challenged.

[7]The application to recall is accordingly dismissed.

Edwards J