Wells v The Queen - [2015] NZCA 528

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA500/2015
[2015] NZCA 528

BETWEEN	MEGAN LEE WELLS Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	3 November 2015
Court:	Randerson, Lang and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in Person Z R Johnston for Respondent
Judgment:	10 November 2015 at 3:00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

Introduction

The applicant Ms Wells was convicted in the District Court of one charge of assault under s 196 of the Crimes Act 1961 after a trial before Judge Field sitting without a jury.[1] She was ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within six months. Ms Wells’ subsequent appeal to the High Court was dismissed by Brewer J.[2]
[1]Police v Wells DC Auckland CRI-2013-004-9316.
[2]Wells v New Zealand Police [2014] NZHC 1825.
Ms Wells now seeks leave to bring a second appeal to this Court under s 237 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 which provides:
237 Right of appeal against determination of first appeal court
(1)A convicted person may, with the leave of the second appeal court, appeal to that court against the determination of the person’s first appeal under this subpart.
(2)The High Court or the Court of Appeal must not give leave for a second appeal under this subpart unless satisfied that—
(a) the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance; or
(b) a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, or may occur unless the appeal is heard.

The decisions in the courts below

The complainant Mr Ford is the applicant’s neighbour. Judge Field accepted Mr Ford’s evidence that he was backing his car out of his driveway when the applicant approached. She banged on the rear window of Mr Ford’s car and later punched him several times about the head and face through the driver’s open window. The Judge was satisfied photographic evidence produced by the police supported the injuries described by Mr Ford.
Ms Wells was self-represented and although given ample opportunity to give evidence herself, did not do so. However, she made it clear to the Judge that her defence was that the complainant had tried to run her down with his car and that she denied punching the complainant. She asserted Mr Ford’s injuries must have arisen from some other cause such as a sudden stop while driving or domestic violence.
When the applicant’s appeal was called in the High Court, she did not appear. Brewer J decided not to strike out the appeal for want of prosecution but to determine the case on the papers. These included points on appeal Ms Wells had filed. Brewer J thoroughly canvassed the course of proceedings in the District Court, the evidence presented and Judge Field’s findings. He rejected the applicant’s claim that her trial was unfair because she was not legally represented. He was satisfied the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal representation,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Wells v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wells v The Queen [2015] NZCA 528
Case: [2015] NZCA 528
Decision Date: 10 November 2015 at 3:00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Megan Lee Wells applied for leave to bring a second appeal against her conviction for assault under section 196 of the Crimes Act 1961. The application followed the dismissal of her initial appeal to the High Court. The Court of Appeal panel, comprising Randerson, Lang, and Clifford JJ, assessed whether the appeal involved a matter of general or public importance or whether a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The court meticulously reviewed the record of the District Court proceedings and the decisions of the High Court. The applicant, self-represented throughout, did not appear at her High Court appeal, submitting instead that she was unable to attend due to a medical condition. The Court of Appeal found that her failure to seek an adjournment did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court was not persuaded that any alleged inaccuracies in the transcript or other procedural issues had any material impact on the outcome of the trial. The Court of Appeal concluded that the appeal did not involve a matter of general or public importance and found no miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the application for leave to bring a second appeal was dismissed.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the application for a second appeal involved a matter of general or public importance and whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred or might occur. Under section 237 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, a convicted person may appeal to the Court of Appeal against the determination of the first appeal court with leave, which is not to be granted unless the court is satisfied that the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance or a miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur unless the appeal is heard. The Court of Appeal considered the applicant's arguments about her failure to attend the High Court appeal, the accuracy of the court transcript, and other procedural concerns. The court was tasked with determining if these issues warranted a second appeal or indicated a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal concluded that none of the issues raised by the applicant met the criteria for leave to appeal, thus the application was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant's failure to attend her appeal in the High Court, despite being aware of the hearing date, did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court held that it was the applicant's obligation to seek an adjournment if she was unable to attend, which she had not done. The court also found that any errors in the transcript were not material and could not have affected the fairness of the trial. Additionally, the court was unpersuaded by the applicant's claims regarding disclosure issues, the absence of an audio recording of a 111 call, and the failure to call additional witnesses. The Court of Appeal held that these issues did not support a finding of a miscarriage of justice or indicate that the appeal involved a matter of general or public importance. Consequently, the application for leave to bring a second appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal declined the application for leave to bring a second appeal, and no further appeal may be brought in this matter.

Orders