Warren v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 55/2021
[2021] NZSC 79

BETWEEN	RHYS RICHARD NGAHIWI WARREN also known as TE RANGATIRA TANGATA WHENUA Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person J E Mildenhall for Respondent
Judgment:	5 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

In March 2017, the applicant was convicted after a High Court jury trial of two charges of attempted murder, one charge of using a firearm against a law enforcement officer and one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. In August 2017, he was sentenced to preventive detention with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years.[1]
[1]R v Warren [2017] NZHC 1913 (Brewer J).
In September 2017, he appealed to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence. However, in September 2018, he notified the Court of Appeal that he was withdrawing his appeal. In December 2018, he filed a formal notice of abandonment of his appeal to the Court of Appeal. On 2 February 2019, that Court issued a notice of result certifying that the appeal had been abandoned.
The applicant now seeks leave for a leapfrog appeal to this Court against his convictions and sentence. His notice of application for leave to bring a criminal appeal was filed in this Court on 19 May 2021. However, he had earlier filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal, which was received by that Court on 2 March 2021. Counsel for the respondent described this document as an application to withdraw the notice of abandonment of the applicant’s earlier appeal to the Court of Appeal, but the applicant says it is a fresh appeal. Whatever it is, it seeks to engage the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to challenge his convictions and sentence.
Under s 75 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, this Court must not give leave for a leapfrog appeal unless it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the appeal, applying the criteria in s 74, and, in addition, that there are exceptional circumstances that justify taking the proposed appeal directly to this Court.
In addition, it is necessary for the applicant to satisfy us that he should be granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal to this Court, given that his notice of application for leave to appeal is more than three years out of time.
We are not satisfied that there is any proper basis to allow the applicant to pursue a leapfrog appeal to this Court at the same time as he is seeking to challenge his convictions and sentence in the Court of Appeal. The appropriate course is to allow the Court of Appeal proceedings to run their course.
Given that the matter is currently before the Court of Appeal, we do not consider it is appropriate to express any view about the grounds of appeal which the applicant wishes to pursue.
The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an application by Rhys Richard Ngahiwi Warren, also known as Te Rangatira Tangata Whenua, for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court. Warren had been convicted of multiple serious offences, including attempted murder and using a firearm against a law enforcement officer. Following his conviction, Warren appealed to the Court of Appeal but subsequently withdrew that appeal. He now sought leave for a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court against his convictions and sentence, despite having previously filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeal. The central legal issues before the Court were whether it was in the interests of justice to allow the leapfrog appeal and whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying bypassing the Court of Appeal. Additionally, the Court had to determine if an extension of time was warranted for Warren to apply for leave to appeal, given that his application was significantly out of time.

The Court found that there was no proper basis to permit Warren to pursue a leapfrog appeal directly to the Supreme Court while simultaneously seeking to challenge his convictions and sentence in the Court of Appeal. It concluded that the appropriate course of action was to allow the Court of Appeal proceedings to run their course. The Court was not satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to hear the appeal directly, nor did it find any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a leapfrog appeal. Given the existing Court of Appeal proceedings, the Court deemed it inappropriate to express any view on the grounds of appeal Warren intended to pursue. Consequently, the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal was dismissed.

In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed Warren's application for leave to appeal directly to the Court and ruled that the existing Court of Appeal proceedings should be allowed to proceed. No extension of time was granted for Warren to apply for leave to appeal, given the significant delay in his application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established