Van Houten v Police

[2020] NZCA 272

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA76/2020
 [2020] NZCA 272

BETWEEN	DANIEL PAUL VAN HOUTEN Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	Gilbert, Ellis and Katz JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person S E Trounson for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	3 July 2020 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal against conviction is declined for want of jurisdiction.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Gilbert J)

1. On 24 March 2010, Mr Van Houten was sentenced by Judge Maude in the District Court at Whangārei to 12 months’ supervision and ordered to surrender two firearms.[1]  This sentence followed Mr Van Houten’s guilty plea to two charges of obtaining by deception (two semi-automatic rifles using a firearm licence that was revoked on 30 December 2006) and two charges of unlawful possession of these firearms. 

   [1]Police v Van Houten DC Whangārei CRI-2009-088-5394, 24 March 2010.

2. Some nine and a half years later, Mr Van Houten applied to the High Court for leave to appeal against these convictions.  On 12 December 2019, Muir J declined Mr Van Houten’s application for leave to appeal out of time.[2] 

   [2]Van Houten v Police [2019] NZHC 3266.

3. Mr Van Houten then applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.  That application was declined by Muir J on 5 February 2020.[3] 

   [3]Van Houten v Police [2020] NZHC 86.

4. Mr Van Houten now applies to this Court for leave to appeal against his convictions.  This application is misconceived.  For the reasons that follow, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. 

5. The proceedings against Mr Van Houten commenced by way of two informations laid on 26 November 2009, prior to the commencement of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.  Any appeal to the Court of Appeal is accordingly governed by s 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 (repealed on 1 July 2013).  That section provides for appeals to this Court against any determination of the High Court in two circumstances, first, on any case stated appeal on a question of law under s 107, and secondly, on a question of law arising in any general appeal.[4]  In either case, leave for the further appeal must be sought in the first instance from the High Court.[5]  Only if leave is refused by the High Court can this Court grant special leave to appeal.  Leave can only be granted if the question of law involved in the proposed appeal is one of general or public importance or for some other reason ought to be submitted to this Court for decision.[6]

   [4]Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 144(1).

   [5]Section 144(2).

   [6]Section 144(3).

6. In this case, there has been no appeal to the High Court, whether by way of case stated on a question of law or by way of general appeal.  This is because Muir J declined to grant an extension of time to appeal.  It follows that there is no jurisdiction under s 144 for any appeal to this Court.  In any event, Mr Van Houten’s proposed appeal does not raise any question of law, let alone one which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to this Court for decision.  Mr Van Houten’s application for leave to appeal must accordingly be declined for want of jurisdiction. 

Result

1. The application for leave to appeal against conviction is declined for want of jurisdiction.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent