Walker v Police

[2017] NZHC 1169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-000323 [2017] NZHC 1169

BETWEEN

COURTNEY WALKER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	30 May 2017
Appearances:	No appearance by or for Appellant A Park for Respondent
Judgment:	31 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie

On 31 May 2017 at 2.45pm Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel: Meredith Connell

Copy to: C Walker

WALKER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 1169 [31 May 2017]

[1]      Ms Walker’s appeal against sentence was filed as long ago as 28 September

2016.

[2]      Initially, a Ms Hinchco was assigned by Legal Services to act for Ms Walker. [3]      Ms Hinchco filed a memorandum on 14 October 2016 advising that she had

instructions from Ms Walker to act for her on the appeal.   However, Ms Hinchco went on to advise that she considered it preferable for new counsel to be assigned, and that Ms Maxwell had agreed to look at the case de novo.  She advised that a legal aid application had been sent to Ms Walker but that she was still awaiting completion and signature of that document.   The call-over was vacated as a consequence.

[4]      The appeal was next called before the Court on 18 November 2016.  There was no appearance either by or for Ms Walker.   Woolford J adjourned the appeal until Friday 16 December 2016.  He recorded that if there was no appearance for Ms Walker on that date, the appeal was likely to be struck out for want of prosecution.

[5]      When the appeal was called before the Court on 16 December 2016, Ms Walker did appear in person.  She advised that she had made an application for legal aid, but that it had not been granted.   The appeal was adjourned until Friday 3

February 2017.

[6]      When the appeal was called on that date, there was again no appearance by Ms Walker.  Woolford J adjourned the matter to 24 February 2017, and recorded that if there was no appearance by Ms Walker on that date, the appeal was liable to be struck out for want of prosecution.

[7]      The appeal was called on 24 February 2017.  There was no appearance by Ms Walker, but the Court did receive an email from her.  She requested that the appeal should be adjourned yet again.   Woolford J granted a further adjournment to 17

March 2017, but reiterated that if she did not attend, the appeal was likely to be struck out.

[8]      The matter was called before Downs J on 17 March 2017.   Ms Maxwell appeared for Ms Walker.  She advised that she had only just been assigned and she requested time to peruse the relevant materials. That request was granted.

[9]      The appeal was next called on 7 April 2017.  Ms Maxwell appeared.  Lang J made timetable orders, inter alia requiring that submissions for Ms Walker were to be filed and served by 16 May 2017.  He also fixed a hearing date.

[10]     On 16 May 2017, Ms Maxwell filed a memorandum advising that she had attempted to contact Ms Walker by email, mobile phone and letter, and that all attempts had been unsuccessful.  She advised that she had never met Ms Walker, and she sought leave to withdraw.

[11]     Leave was granted by Downs J on 23 May 2017.

[12]     I endeavoured to convene a telephone conference on 29 May 2017.   The Registrar was unable to reach Ms Maxwell at any of the addresses or telephone numbers held by the Registry.

[13]     The appeal was called before me today.  No submissions had been filed by or on behalf of Ms Walker.  Ms Walker did not appear.  She either was, or should have been, aware of the hearing date.  It was fixed by Lang J on 7 April 2017 when Ms Maxwell was acting for her.

[14]     Ms Park appeared for the Crown.  She advised that she had not heard from

Ms Walker.

[15]     Accordingly, I strike the appeal out for want of prosecution.  The file can be closed.

Wylie J