The Queen v Lewis

[2007] NZCA 503

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA402/07
[2007] NZCA 503

THE QUEEN

v

PETER JOHN LEWIS

Hearing:12 November 2007

Court:William Young P, Glazebrook and Chambers JJ

Counsel:Appellant in Person

T Smith for Crown

Judgment:15 November 2007 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application to extend time in which to bring an application for special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted. 

BThe application for special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Chambers J)

[1]       On 14 February 2001, Peter Lewis, then aged about 70, pleaded guilty to a charge of common assault arising out of an incident with his wife.  Judge Treston convicted and discharged him. 

[2]       In 2003, Mr Lewis sought leave to appeal out of time against his conviction.  His central complaint was that he was not given adequate legal advice prior to entering his plea of guilty.  Potter J dismissed the appeal: HC AK A77/03 7 November 2003.  She was satisfied Mr Lewis had been properly advised before he pleaded guilty. 

[3]       Three and a half years then elapsed.  At that point Mr Lewis filed a document in the High Court at Auckland which Potter J treated as an application for leave to appeal under s 144(1) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.  The document raised a number of issues, including the manner of Mr Lewis’s arrest back in 2000 and his belief that his former wife had administered to him some substance with a view to sterilising him.  None of this, of course, had any relevance to the issues dealt with in the 2003 judgment.  Not surprisingly, Potter J dismissed the application: HC AK CRI2003-404-229 3 July 2007. 

[4]       Mr Lewis has now applied to this court for special leave to appeal.  Yet again the application is out of time.  Ms Smith, for the Crown, did not oppose an extension of time for the filing of the application for special leave.

[5]       Mr Lewis’s written application widens the scope of his complaints.  The following list of complaints is by no means exhaustive:

·His former wife lied. 

·The police harassed him on four occasions after the conviction.

·The solicitors representing the Crown at the various High Court hearings had behaved objectionably.

·The police had illegally arrested Mr Lewis.

·Police officers committed perjury.

·His former lawyer, who had acted for him in the District Court in 2001, had subsequently turned against him and had committed perjury.

[6]       Mr Lewis appeared before us in person and made extensive oral submissions.  These involved a recitation of everything that had happened since the initial incident.

[7]       Unfortunately, as we tried to explain to Mr Lewis, he has quite misunderstood the limited jurisdiction of this court on a case of this kind.  Mr Lewis can appeal to this court only if he can satisfy the criteria under s 144(3) of the Summary Proceedings Act:

Where the High Court refuses leave to any party to appeal to the Court of Appeal under this section, that party may, within 21 days after the refusal of the High Court or within such further time as the Court of Appeal may allow, apply to the Court of Appeal, in such manner as may be directed by the rules of that Court, for special leave to appeal to that Court, and the Court of Appeal may grant leave accordingly if in the opinion of that Court the question of law involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.  [Emphasis added.] 

[8]       Mr Lewis has not identified any question of law for this court’s consideration, let alone a question of law of general or public importance.  Mr Lewis freely acknowledged that.  What he wants us to do is conduct a general inquiry as to the circumstances of his arrest and of his interactions with the police since 2000.  He also appears to want us to conduct some sort of inquiry into the activities of his former lawyer.  None of this is possible: we simply do not have jurisdiction to undertake an inquiry of that nature. 

[9]       Mr Lewis’s application for special leave must, therefore, be dismissed, essentially for the same reasons Potter J gave in her 3 July 2007 judgment.  Mr Lewis has not identified any question of law arising out of Potter J’s 2003 judgment.  The case does not come remotely near meeting the criteria under s 144(3). 

[10]     Further, the application to appeal to this court comes more than six years after Mr Lewis pleaded guilty and was convicted.  The offence was minor, as shown by the fact no penalty was imposed. 

[11]     We conclude by reiterating the final paragraph of Potter J’s decision on the leave application:

[9]I will simply add as a rider that Mr Lewis has been engaged in this matter for many years.  It dates back to December 2000.  It is well past the point where he must move on.  Continuing to mull over the traces will not progress matters from the point of view of Mr Lewis or anyone else.  Mr Lewis should treat the issues as now finally determined and exhausted.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington