Taueki v Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 91/2021
[2021] NZSC 125

BETWEEN	PHILIP DEAN TAUEKI Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person F R J Sinclair for Respondent
Judgment:	23 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant, Philip Taueki, is facing a charge of assault in the District Court. He unsuccessfully sought a discharge, apparently both at common law and under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011[1] and now applies for leave to appeal directly to this Court against the dismissal of his application.
[1]New Zealand Police v Taueki [2021] NZDC 14263 (Judge Edwards).
In the judgment dismissing the application for a discharge, the District Court Judge expressed the view that it was possible for the applicant to “appeal the ruling on a question of law”.[2] Presumably relying on what the District Court Judge said, the applicant seeks to invoke s 296 of the Criminal Procedure Act in support of his application for leave to appeal.
[2]At [16].
Section 296 confers a right of appeal in relation to the dismissal of a charge under s 147; it does not extend a similar right in respect of the refusal of an application for dismissal.[3] To the extent to which the applicant’s challenge is to the refusal to discharge him at common law, he faces the same problem. Assuming for the moment that there is jurisdiction to grant such a discharge, the Act does not provide for a right of appeal against a refusal.
[3][L] v R [2019] NZCA 329 at [35]–[36]; and [R] v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2016] NZCA 471 at [19]–[24]. See also D (CA716/2015) v R [2016] NZCA 190 at [20]–[23]; and [C] v R [2021] NZSC 110 at [63] per William Young and O’Regan JJ.
There is a further jurisdictional issue. Under s 297(1)(b), the first appeal court in relation to the judgment under challenge is the High Court. For this reason too, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeal.
The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was asked to consider an application for leave to appeal from Philip Taueki, who was facing a charge of assault in the District Court. Taueki had already unsuccessfully sought a discharge from the charge both at common law and under section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. He now sought leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court against the dismissal of his application for a discharge. The court was required to determine whether Taueki had a right to appeal the dismissal of his application and whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear such an appeal.

The court began by examining the provisions of section 296 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides a right of appeal in relation to the dismissal of a charge under section 147, but does not extend to the refusal of an application for dismissal. The court noted that Taueki's challenge was to the refusal to discharge him at common law, and that the Act did not provide for a right of appeal against such a refusal. The court also pointed out that under section 297(1)(b), the first appeal court in relation to the judgment under challenge was the High Court, and that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeal. The court concluded that the application for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The court did not address the merits of Taueki's application for a discharge, as it found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court did not make any orders in relation to the underlying charge of assault, as that matter was to be determined in the District Court.

In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed Taueki's application for leave to appeal, finding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to the lack of a right to appeal the dismissal of an application for a discharge and the requirement that the first appeal court was the High Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established