Warren v Police

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, Vincent Warren, the applicant, sought an appeal against the refusal of a rehearing of his criminal conviction and sentence. The respondent was the New Zealand Police. The applicant had previously pleaded guilty to criminal charges and subsequently abandoned his appeal against conviction. The District Court dismissed his application for a rehearing, and he sought to appeal this decision. The court was required to determine whether the appeal against the refusal to grant a rehearing had any merit and if the decision of the District Court was correct.

The court found that the appeal had no merit. The applicant had previously had the opportunity to ventilate his grounds for appeal against conviction, which was dismissed as lacking merit. Additionally, Judge MacAskill had also dismissed the application for a rehearing, and no circumstances had changed since then. The court concluded that the current appeal, which raised the same issues as the previous decisions, had no hope of success.

The appeal was dismissed. The court's reasoning was that the applicant had already had the opportunity to argue his grounds for appeal against conviction, which was dismissed. The District Court's decision to refuse a rehearing was also correct, and no circumstances had changed to warrant a different outcome. Therefore, the appeal had no merit, and the decision of the District Court was upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

(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.