T v Police HC Greymouth Cri-2006-418-9

[2007] NZHC 1897

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2006-418-000009

T

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         21 June 2007 (By way of Telephone Conference) Counsel:  Appellant In Person

B M Stanaway for Respondent

Judgment:      21 June 2007

JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J (RE LEAVE APPLICATION)

[1]      Mr T   seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to my decision of 11 May 2007, which related to a conviction entered in the District Court for trespass.  The application is novel, given that Mr T  ’s appeal succeeded.  His conviction was quashed.

[2]      Undaunted, Mr T   seeks leave in relation to two aspects of the judgment. The first concerns a ground of appeal which failed, and the second is a challenge to

my ruling that costs would not follow the event.

T V NZ POLICE HC GRY CRI-2006-418-000009  21 June 2007

[3]      At the appeal Mr T   argued that in the District Court he had not had adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence, and that for this reason his appeal should be allowed on account of a breach of s24(d) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.   For reasons set out at para [17] of my judgment I rejected the argument.   Mr T   seeks leave to appeal with reference to this point.   I do not consider any question of law exists which would warrant leave, even assuming it is competent to grant leave where a conviction has been quashed.

[4]      Costs were declined effectively on the basis that, while the Judge’s approach to the case had been incorrect, the merits did not favour Mr T  ’s position, but because of the lapse of time and comparatively minor nature of the charge an order for rehearing was inappropriate.

[5]      Mr T   wishes to contest this aspect.   Again, I am not satisfied that the costs ruling gives rise to a question of law, let alone a question which satisfies the test in s144(3) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

[6]      For these reasons leave to appeal is refused.

[7]      For completeness I wish to refer to a further matter which was raised in the context of the leave application.   Mr T   produced trespass notices which have been served on him and contain a warning to stay away from the Greymouth and Westport courthouses, save when he is required to attend to conduct court-related business.  The notices have been issued pursuant to s4(2) of the Trespass Act 1980. (I note that the prosecution which was successfully appealed was not based on a notice, but rather an oral warning to leave pursuant to s3 of the Act).

[8]      In light of various of the authorities discussed in my judgment, Mr T   protested at the continued existence of these trespass notices.  On the face of it, the existence of trespass notices in relation to a courthouse appears remarkable, but on the  other  hand  the  background  to  the  service  of  the  notices  is  not  before  me. Mr Stanaway indicated his understanding that the notices had not been issued lightly, rather only after the court Registrar had taken legal advice.  However, Mr Stanaway confirmed his willingness to raise with  the Registrar  the appropriateness  of the

notices.  He will do so on the express basis that each notice continues in force in the

meantime.

Solicitors:

Appellant - Mr Robert T  , C/- Post Office, Reefton, West Coast
Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch for Respondent