The Queen v Petryszick

[2009] NZCA 515

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA269/2008
[2009] NZCA 515

THE QUEEN

v

PETER MORRISON PETRYSZICK

Hearing:15 October 2009

Court:Chambers, Potter and Wild JJ

Counsel:J Soondram for Appellant

B D Tantrum for Crown

Judgment:27 October 2009 at 2.15 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Chambers J)

[1] This appeal has been dogged by delay, all of it the fault of Peter Petryszick, the appellant. Eventually, on 30 June 2009, a panel of this court (Hammond, Keane and Simon France JJ) had had enough. The court, in a minute released that day, described the position as “thoroughly unsatisfactory”: at [4]. In the end, the court granted Mr Petryszick an adjournment of his appeal, but on strict terms. One of those terms was that Mr Petryszick was, by 30 July 2009, “to file written submissions in support of his appeal”. The court added:

If he does not file such written submissions then he will not be heard at the appeal.  This is an unless order. 

[2]       Mr Petryszick did not file submissions.  Nor did he comply with other conditions the court had imposed. 

[3]       On 7 September, Glazebrook J had a telephone conference with Mr Petryszick and Crown counsel.  She gave Mr Petryszick one last chance.  He was to file his submissions that day.  He did not do so.  Indeed, even now no submissions have been received from him.

[4]       Very belatedly Mr Petryszick has sought to get legal aid and a lawyer involved.  (This court had told him to apply for legal aid last year.  He would not do so.)  Mr Soondram appeared on Mr Petryszick’s behalf.  He advised us that he and Mr Comeskey had been given a limited grant of legal aid to investigate whether Mr Petryszick had valid appeal grounds.  So far they had been able to identify only two which were worthy of further investigation.  (That is to say, Mr Soondram could not say these were points worth running; merely they warranted further enquiry.)  Mr Soondram sought an adjournment so that further investigation could take place and an application made for a proper grant of legal aid. 

[5]       Even though in terms of this court’s earlier orders Mr Petryszick had no right to be heard on the appeal, we did enquire of Mr Soondram what these two points were so that we could evaluate whether the points appeared to have merit and, if so, whether, as a further indulgence, a final adjournment should be permitted. 

[6]       The first matter was that a court official (unnamed) had allegedly said something to the jury which was in some way improper.  Mr Soondram said Mr Petryszick had a witness to the alleged statement, but Mr Soondram did not know the name of the witness or what he or she would say.  We have no more detail than that.  Without more, we cannot judge the merit of this allegation. 

[7]       The second matter relates to the validity of a search warrant permitting the police to search certain Vodafone records with respect to the use of Mr Petryszick’s mobile phone at about the time the crime was committed.  We have looked at the application for the search warrant.  It seems to us to be in proper form.  The police had good grounds for wanting to search those records given that Mr Petryszick’s explanation for running into the cyclist was that he had had to pull over to answer his mobile phone.  His explanation was that the collision was accidental; the police view was his actions were intentional and were a consequence of “road rage”.  The police wanted to see whether Vodafone’s records revealed he had received any telephone calls at the relevant time.  Those records showed he had not.  That was a quite legitimate line of enquiry. 

[8]       These two matters would appear to have no merit.  In the circumstances, we were not prepared to grant a further indulgence.  We refused the adjournment.  Mr Soondram advised he was not in a position to advance anything further on the appeal. 

[9]       It is time this long-running appeal was brought to an end.  We dismiss the appeal. 

[10]     If Mr Petryszick feels he has not been heard on the appeal, he has only himself to blame.  This court has bent over backwards to get this appeal ready for hearing and to urge Mr Petryszick to apply for legal aid so that a lawyer could properly analyse whether he had any legitimate grounds of appeal.  Instead, he has chosen to run a meritless campaign alleging a massive conspiracy involving the police, the Crown Solicitor in Whangarei, court staff, the legal profession, and the judiciary. 

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington