Warren v Police
[2015] NZHC 665
•2 April 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
CRI-2012-409-000060 [2015] NZHC 665
BETWEEN VINCENT WARREN
Applicant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
Hearing: On the papers Judgment:
2 April 2015
JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J
The nature of this proceeding
[1] The background to this matter is set out in my judgment of 23 February 2015, in which I refused leave for Mr Warren to reinstate an abandoned appeal against conviction.1 Following that refusal, Mr Warren applied to the District Court for a
rehearing pursuant to s 75 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.2 This application
was dismissed, on the papers, on the following bases:3
(a) The defendant pleaded guilty after receiving advice from counsel. (b)
The information relied upon does not call into question appropriateness of his guilty pleas.
the
(c)
He was represented by counsel at the sentencing hearing.
1 Warren v Police [2015] NZHC 251.
2 Police v Warren [2015] NZDC 1666.
3 At [1].
VINCENT WARREN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 665 [2 April 2015]
(d)He appealed against conviction and sentence to the High Court but abandoned the appeal against conviction. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.
(e) The information relied upon does not call into question the appropriateness of the sentencing outcome.
(f) No useful purpose would be served by a rehearing as he has served the sentences imposed.
(g)The unexplained delay since sentencing on 20 October 2010 and dismissal of the appeal on 11 October 2012.
(h)The application is prima facie attributable to his continuing fixation with the victim and the facts of the case.
(i) A rehearing would re-victimise the victim without cause.
[2] Mr Warren now seeks to appeal the refusal to grant a rehearing. That appeal is wholly without merit and I dismiss it now. My brief reasons follow.
[3] Mr Warren had an opportunity to ventilate his substantive grounds for his appeal against conviction earlier this year. I dismissed the application to reinstate that appeal on 23 February 2015 on the basis it had no merit.
[4] Judge MacAskill formed the same view in relation to the s 75 application. No circumstances have changed in the intervening period. My determination on the appeal, which raised the same issues, coupled with Judge MacAskill’s refusal to entertain the s 75 application, render this current appeal without hope of success.
Outcome
[5] The appeal is dismissed.
...................................................
Gendall J
Solicitors:
Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch
Copy to Appellant