The Queen v Chadwick

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA748/2008
[2009] NZCA 43
THE QUEEN
v
BRADY ERROL CHADWICK
Hearing:23 February 2009

Court:William Young P, Chisholm and Heath JJ
Counsel:Appellant in person

K A L Bicknell for Crown

Judgment:2 March 2009 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by William Young P)
[1]       The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a judgment of the High Court dismissing his appeal against conviction on a charge of failing, without reasonable excuse, to answer police bail.
[2]       In the District Court, the applicant was tried on this charge and two others, one alleging disorderly conduct and the other possession of a knife without lawful excuse. It was in respect of these latter charges that the applicant had been granted police bail. It is common ground that the applicant failed to answer his bail and he admits as much. It is clear that the applicant took the view that he should not have been prosecuted on the other charges and they were in the end dismissed. But the dismissal of those charges did not retrospectively excuse his earlier non-appearance. And at the hearing in the District Court the applicant did not point to anything else which could amount to a reasonable excuse. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the District Court judge found him guilty of failing to answer his bail.
[3]       On appeal in the High Court, the applicant sought to rely on unrelated – or at best loosely related – complaints in relation to the police and the judiciary and other state agencies in relation to conduct (including poisoning him with the sap of the euphorbia plant) which he saw as provoking his non-attendance. Some of these complaints (and in particular those in relation to the judiciary) relate to events which post-dated his non-appearance. Simon France J saw nothing of merit in the applicant’s argument and dismissed both the appeal and a subsequent application for leave to appeal to this Court. The applicant’s response was to seek leave to appeal from this Court.
[4]       There is no general right to a second appeal in relation to proceedings under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. A second appeal is permitted only with leave and only in relation to questions of law that are either of a general or public importance or which for some other reason ought to be submitted to the Court (see s 144(3) of the Summary Proceedings Act).
[5]       When the applicant sought leave to appeal in the High Court, Simon France J was unable to discern a point of law raised by the appeal. We are in the same position.
[6]       Accordingly we dismiss the application for leave to appeal.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand presided over an application for leave to appeal a decision made by the High Court in the matter of The Queen v Brady Errol Chadwick. The applicant, Brady Errol Chadwick, sought leave to appeal against his conviction for failing to answer police bail without reasonable excuse. Chadwick had been granted bail on two charges, one of disorderly conduct and the other of possession of a knife without lawful excuse. Despite the dismissal of these charges, Chadwick's failure to answer bail led to his conviction in the District Court. The applicant's appeal to the High Court was dismissed, and a subsequent application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was also denied.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant had established a point of law that warranted a second appeal, as such appeals are not permitted as of right under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The applicant attempted to argue that his failure to appear was due to unrelated complaints about the police and the judiciary, but the Court found no merit in these arguments. The Court of Appeal noted that the High Court had already dismissed the appeal, finding no point of law of general or public importance.

The Court of Appeal, led by William Young P, found that there was no point of law raised by the appeal that warranted a second appeal. The Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the questions of law were of a general or public importance or otherwise deserving of the Court's attention. Therefore, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established