Walters v Police

[2014] NZHC 2481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI 2014-488-12 [2014] NZHC 2481

BETWEEN

LEON DESMOND WALTERS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	9 October 2014 (by telephone)
Counsel:	M A Littlefair for Appellant B M O'Connor for Respondent
Judgment:	9 October 2014

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

Solicitors:

D Blaikie, Kaikohe

Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

WALTERS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2481 [9 October 2014]

[1]      Mr Walters sought leave to appeal against a pre-trial ruling concerning disclosure.  It was given in the context of a charge to be heard by the District Court under the Land Transport Act 1998.  In the meantime, the hearing has proceeded and judgment has been reserved.  It is expected that the reserved judgment will be given on 15 October 2014.

[2]      Mr Walters’ application for leave to appeal had been set down for hearing at

2.15pm on 20 October 2014.   I asked the Registrar to inquire as to the present position.  I was concerned that there did not appear to be any reasons available in respect of which the appeal could be considered and also that the substantive case had been heard in any event.

[3]      At  today’s  telephone hearing Mr  Littlefair  has  advised  me,  on  behalf  of Mr Walters, that provided appeal rights are preserved in respect of the disclosure ruling, he is content for the appeal to be abandoned and to determine whether it should proceed after a decision of the District Court has been given.  Obviously, if Mr Walters were found not guilty any appeal would be moot.

[4]      I inquired of Ms O’Connor, for the Police, as to her position.  She agreed that abandonment of the appeal, while preserving appeal rights, seemed to be the preferable option.

[5]      In my view, that is the appropriate course to follow.   The appeal shall be treated as abandoned.   The hearing scheduled for 20 October 2014 is vacated and appearances are excused.

[6]      I make it clear, for any Judge who needs to deal with this issue in the future, that abandonment has taken place to avoid the need to decide a pre-trial issue when the trial has already taken place.  I intend that Mr Walters’ appeal rights in respect of

the disclosure issue will be preserved and that (if it were necessary), an extension of

time to seek leave to appeal would be appropriate.

P R Heath J