Terry v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 87/2020
[2020] NZSC 149

BETWEEN	ROBERT FRANK TERRY Appellant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person R K Thomson and S E Trounson for Respondent
Judgment:	18 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a decision of Courtney J dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal declining to accept for filing a notice of application for leave to appeal to that Court.[1]
[1]Terry v New Zealand Police [2020] NZCA 415.
Courtney J upheld the decision of the Deputy Registrar because Mr Terry had exhausted his appeal rights against his conviction for a traffic offence. He had appealed unsuccessfully from the decision of the Justices of the Peace convicting him to the District Court.[2] He was then refused leave to appeal against the District Court decision by the High Court.[3]
[2]Terry v New Zealand Police [2019] NZDC 4742 (Judge Barry). His appeal against conviction was dismissed but his appeal against sentence was allowed.
[3]Terry v New Zealand Police [2019] NZHC 1131 (Grice J).
Mr Terry then attempted to file an application for leave to appeal against the decision of Grice J to the Court of Appeal, which was not accepted by the Deputy Registrar for filing, because Mr Terry had exhausted his appeal rights under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. That decision of the Deputy Registrar was upheld by Clifford J on review.[4] Mr Terry sought leave from this Court to appeal against the decision of Clifford J, but this was declined.[5]
[4]Terry v New Zealand Police [2020] NZCA 185 (Clifford J).
[5]Terry v New Zealand Police [2020] NZSC 105.
Before filing the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal referred to above, Mr Terry also filed a second application for leave to appeal to the High Court. This was processed by the High Court apparently because the registry staff did not realise that the application related to the same matter that had been dealt with by Grice J. This second application for leave to appeal to the High Court required an extension of time, which was refused by the High Court.[6] Mr Terry then attempted to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of Simon France J, and again the Deputy Registrar refused to accept this for filing because the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with it. That decision was upheld by Courtney J on review in the decision against which Mr Terry now seeks leave to appeal.
[6]Terry v New Zeland Police [2020] NZHC 1682 (Simon France J).
It is clear Mr Terry has well and truly exhausted his appeal rights and that this Court has no jurisdiction to determine the present application. His appeal rights were exhausted after the decision of Grice J. All the steps he has taken since then have been beyond the jurisdiction of the relevant courts.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Robert Frank Terry v New Zealand Police was heard. Terry sought leave to appeal against a decision by Courtney J dismissing his application for review of a decision by the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal. The Deputy Registrar had declined to accept for filing a notice of application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, a decision upheld by Courtney J. Terry had previously appealed unsuccessfully from a conviction for a traffic offence to the District Court, and from the District Court decision to the High Court, where his appeal against conviction was dismissed but his appeal against sentence was allowed. Despite this, Terry attempted to file an application for leave to appeal against the decision of Grice J to the Court of Appeal, which was not accepted by the Deputy Registrar for filing, as Terry had exhausted his appeal rights under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The decision of the Deputy Registrar was upheld by Clifford J on review, and Terry sought leave from this Court to appeal against the decision of Clifford J, but this was declined.

The legal issues the Court needed to decide were whether Terry had exhausted his appeal rights and if the Court had jurisdiction to determine the present application. The Court examined Terry's previous attempts to appeal his conviction and sentence, finding that his appeal rights were exhausted after the decision of Grice J. All steps Terry took since then were beyond the jurisdiction of the relevant courts. The Court found that it had no jurisdiction to determine the present application.

In reaching its decision, the Court highlighted that Terry's appeal rights were exhausted after the decision of Grice J. All subsequent steps taken by Terry were beyond the jurisdiction of the relevant courts. The Court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to determine the present application. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established