The Queen v Prasad

[2009] NZCA 525

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA507/2009
[2009] NZCA 525

THE QUEEN

v

RAJENDRA PRASAD

Hearing:9 November 2009

Court:Robertson, Rodney Hansen and Courtney JJ

Counsel:Appellant in person

J M Jelas for Crown

Judgment:11 November 2009 at 12 p.m.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Robertson J)

[1]       Mr Prasad seeks special leave under s 144(3) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 to appeal against the decision of Potter J in the Auckland High Court on 26 May 2009 and/or a decision of Harrison J of 23 June 2009.

[2]       On 21 August 2008 in the Auckland District Court, Judge Field, after a defended hearing, found Mr Prasad guilty of the following summary offences:

(a)That on 1 December 2006 at Auckland Mr Prasad, contrary to s 261(6A) of the Companies Act 1993, failed to attend upon the liquidator of World Commerce Limited (in liquidation) as requested by the liquidator; and

(b)That between 20 November 2006 and 17 July 2007 at Auckland, contrary to s 261(6A) of the Companies Act, Mr Prasad failed to supply the liquidator of World Commerce Limited information about the business, accounts, or affairs of the company as requested in writing by the liquidator.

[3]       Mr Prasad was subsequently sentenced to 100 hours community work.

[4]       In a timely way, there was an appeal filed against both conviction and sentence.

[5]       At the District Court hearing, Mr Prasad was unrepresented.  On 26 May 2009 before Potter J, in his appeal in the High Court, Mr Prasad was represented by Mr P Dalkie.  Paragraph (2) of a Minute issued that day says:

[2]       Mr Dalkie advised that he had very recently been instructed by Mr Prasad, had given him general advice about the unmeritorious nature of his appeal against conviction but required time to check the position in relation to the sentence appeal and to get instructions from Mr Prasad.  He sought a short adjournment to enable this to be done.

[6]       There was a further adjournment and eventually the matter came before Harrison J on 23 June 2009.  By that stage, Mr Dalkie was out of the proceedings.

[7]       Harrison J treated the matter as having involved an abandonment of the appeal against conviction on 26 May 2009.  Therefore the only matter alive before him was a sentence appeal.  It appears that was a matter of some spirited disagreement.

[8]       Mr Prasad made an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal which was refused on 30 July 2009 after a number of unsatisfactory documents had been filed and rejected.

[9]       He now seeks special leave in this Court.  The rules relating to a second appeal under s 144 are clear.  There is nothing about this matter which raises any important question of law.  At the highest, there is an argument about the application of settled principles to a factual position. We say that in the knowledge that behind all of this is a raft of other litigation in all levels of the Court system with regard to the original liquidation of a company. 

[10]     There may be room for argument as to whether, on 26 May 2009, there was actually an abandonment of the conviction appeal, but if there was an attempt to reinstate that aspect of the appeal to the High Court, part of the exercise would be to look at the merits.

[11]     In the District Court, Mr Prasad in evidence admitted that the company was in liquidation, that he was a director, and that the liquidator served notice in writing which he received and failed to comply with.

[12]     Mr Prasad cannot use this application for special leave as a tangential way of attacking other matters about which he feels a sense of grievance.

[13]     The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington