Warren v Police

[2015] NZHC 1003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-409-000060 [2015] NZHC 1003

BETWEEN

VINCENT WARREN

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	12 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

[1]      Vincent Warren (Mr Warren) as best I can tell has now purported to appeal to this  Court  against  my  earlier  refusal  to  permit  reinstatement  of  his  abandoned appeal.1   The background to this matter is set out in a series of decisions and I do not

repeat it here.2    Plainly it is not competent for a court of concurrent jurisdiction to

entertain appeals against its own decisions.   I refuse the application, insofar as it might be said to be legitimate.

[2] In a series of applications, Mr Warren has sought, wholly unsuccessfully to re-litigate matters relating to his conviction and sentence on charges of misuse of a telephone and criminal harassment, despite exhausting his avenues of appeal. The present application, at one level strictly speaking, is one that might not have been accepted for filing. I am functus on the matters strictly raised. That said, for the sake of expedience nevertheless, I am prepared to treat what I see as a present application before the Court as one seeking special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against my two most recent decisions ([2015] NZHC 251 and [2015] NZHC

665) pursuant to s 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

1      Warren v Police [2015] NZHC 251.

2      See Warren v Police [2015] NZHC 251; Police v Warren [2015] NZDC 1666; Warren v Police

[2015] NZHC 665; Warren v Police [2012] NZHC 2656.

WARREN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 1003 [12 May 2015]

[3]      Addressing  that  matter,  to  the  extent  that  the application  is  one  seeking special leave, and to the extent that it consists of some question of law (as I see the position, it does not), leave is refused.

[4]      It could be fairly said that, Mr Warren has fully exhausted his avenues of appeal to this Court available under the New Zealand system of Criminal Justice. No aspect of his conviction or sentence has been found wanting.  It would appear he now simply wants to once more ventilate his grievances in the judicial forum provided by the High Court.  That is not appropriate.  The High Court, like other New Zealand Courts, is not one designed to provide people a theatre in which they are able to appeal  and apply ad infinitum until they feel vindicated.   They are bulwarks against injustice.   That purpose has  clearly been served here, and the matters in this Court have come to an end.

...................................................

Gendall J

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch

Copy to Appellant