Vincent Ross Siemer v Attorney-General - [2014] NZSC 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 137/2013
[2014] NZSC 8

BETWEEN	VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person P J Gunn for Respondent
Judgment:	19 February 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

BThe applicant is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Siemer seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of Harrison J dated 27 November 2013. In that judgment Harrison J dismissed Mr Siemer’s application for a review of the Court of Appeal Registrar’s decision declining to waive security for costs.[1]

Context

[1]Siemer v Attorney General [2013] NZCA 472.

The background to this application for leave to appeal was set out in this Court’s judgment in Siemer v Attorney-General.[2]
[2]Siemer v Attorney-General [2013] NZSC 116 at [2]–[18].
In brief, the application for leave stems from a decision in the High Court striking out Mr Siemer’s claim that this Court breached his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Toogood J struck out the claim as a collateral challenge and an abuse of process (“the strike out decision”). Toogood J also refused to recuse himself from dealing with the strike out application (“the recusal decision”).
Mr Siemer filed appeals at the Court of Appeal with regards to the recusal decision (on 6 May 2013) and the strike out decision (on 21 May 2013). In respect of each separate appeal, he applied to the Registrar to dispense with security for costs. Both applications were declined by the Registrar.[3] Mr Siemer then applied, separately in respect to each appeal, for a judge to review the Registrar’s decisions. Both applications were dismissed.[4]
[3]In regards to the strike out appeal, the Registrar declined to dispense with security for costs on 18 June 2013. With respect to the recusal appeal, the Registrar declined to dispense with security for costs on 9 August 2013.
[4]Siemer v Attorney General [2013] NZCA 391; Siemer v Attorney-General, above n 1.
In respect to the security for costs decisions in both the recusal appeal and the strike out appeal, Mr Siemer has sought leave from this Court to appeal against Harrison J’s decisions. This Court has declined his application for leave in respect of the recusal appeal.[5]

Harrison J’s decision on the strike out appeal

[5]Siemer v Attorney-General, above n 2.

In affirming the Registrar’s decision in his judgment of 27 November 2013, Harrison J held that Mr Siemer’s strike out appeal was “without any apparent merit”.[6] He said that Toogood J was “plainly correct” to dismiss his application as a collateral challenge to this Court’s earlier decisions.[7] Harrison J further noted that Mr Siemer’s underlying appeal did not raise any important issues.[8] Nor is there any public interest arising.[9] He concluded that the Registrar was correct not…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Vincent Ross Siemer v Attorney-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZSC 8
Decision Date: 19 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer applied for leave to appeal against the High Court's decision to dismiss his application for a review of the Court of Appeal Registrar's decision declining to waive security for costs. The Registrar's decision pertained to Siemer's appeal against the High Court's earlier decision to strike out his claim that this Court had breached his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The appeal centred around the Registrar's refusal to waive the security for costs, a requirement that Siemer argued was unjust given his financial situation. Siemer contended that the Registrar had accepted his impecuniosity and should not have been required to assess the merits of the appeal.

The court had to determine whether the application for leave to appeal met the criteria for consideration, which includes whether the appeal raises issues of public or general importance or the risk of a miscarriage of justice. In addition, the court needed to assess whether the Registrar's decision was correct in declining to waive the security for costs. The court also needed to consider Siemer's arguments about judicial bias and the refusal of the High Court judge to recuse himself, although leave for the appeal concerning the recusal decision had already been refused.

The court found that Siemer's application did not meet the test for the grant of leave to appeal. The court held that there was no issue of public or general importance and no risk of a miscarriage of justice. The court noted that Siemer had not provided any arguments to justify the merit of the underlying strike out appeal. Instead, Siemer's submissions focused on the issue of judicial bias and the refusal of the High Court judge to recuse himself, which had already been considered and dismissed by the court. The court concluded that the Registrar's decision in declining to waive the security for costs was correct.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and Siemer was ordered to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The court's decision was based on the lack of merit in Siemer's application and the absence of any significant public interest or risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Orders