W (SC 137/2010) v The Queen

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 137/2010
[2017] NZSC 195

BETWEEN	W (SC 137/2010) Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	William Young, OʼRegan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	19 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant has applied (by a letter received on 1 November 2017) for the recall of the judgment of this Court delivered on 8 March 2011 dismissing his application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence.[1] The grounds of the recall application were stated in very general terms and involve allegations against the conduct of the prosecution, the applicant’s counsel, the primary Crown witness, someone said to be a friend of that witness, a District Health Board and the police. It was indicated that sworn affidavits and new evidence would be produced.
[1]W v R [2011] NZSC 13.
In a minute issued on 22 November 2017, William Young J noted:
[2] The letter in support of the recall application alleges misconduct on the part of a number of those involved in the prosecution (including the applicant’s former lawyer). But no evidence substantiating these allegations has been provided.
[3] If the applicant wishes to submit additional material by way of substantiation of his complaints, he is to do so by 15 December 2017.
No additional material has been submitted.
A substantiated basis for the recall of the earlier judgment not having been made out, the recall application is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

W applied for recall of a previous Supreme Court judgment that dismissed his application for leave to appeal against a Court of Appeal judgment affirming his conviction and sentence. The application was dismissed by William Young, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ. The applicant sought to recall the earlier judgment on the basis of misconduct by the prosecution, his counsel, a key witness, someone said to be a friend of the witness, a District Health Board and the police. However, the applicant did not provide any evidence to substantiate these allegations. The Court gave the applicant an opportunity to submit additional material to substantiate the complaints, but none was provided. The recall application was dismissed as no substantiated basis for recalling the earlier judgment was made out.

The key legal issue before the Court was whether there was a substantiated basis for recalling the earlier judgment dismissing the applicant's application for leave to appeal. The Court considered the general allegations of misconduct made by the applicant but noted that no evidence had been provided to substantiate these allegations. The Court gave the applicant an opportunity to provide additional material but none was submitted. The Court concluded that there was no substantiated basis for recalling the earlier judgment.

In dismissing the recall application, the Court noted that the allegations of misconduct were stated in very general terms and no evidence had been provided to substantiate the complaints. The Court gave the applicant an opportunity to submit additional material but none was provided. The Court concluded that the applicant had failed to make out a substantiated basis for recalling the earlier judgment.

No further orders were made. The application for recall was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established