Y v Police HC Hamilton CRI 2006-419-114

[2007] NZHC 1648

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2006-419-114

Y

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         21 February 2007

Appearances: P Y   appellant in person

R Douch for Crown

Judgment:      21 February 2007

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PRIESTLEY J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, P O Box 19173, Hamilton

Y V NZ POLICE HC HAM CRI 2006-419-114  21 February 2007

[1]      Mr Y   has appeared today at the Registrar’s request, and the Court is grateful to him for his courtesy.

[2]      Mr Y  ’s real concern was that the trial judge, McLean DCJ, who presided over a trial in August 2006 where Mr Y   was convicted on assault of a security officer, was in some way tainted.

[3]      Mr  Y   informs  me  that  he  has  now  served  the  80  hour  sentence  of community work. His appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed by Allan J in this Court on 21 November 2006.

[4]      I have explained to Mr Y   that it is highly improbable that Judge McLean would have been biased in the way he conducted the four day hearing in August

2006 because, in a totally different capacity, he sentenced, on a guilty plea, one P.S. Keenan on 18 November 2005. That sentence related to untrue statements contained in a registered prospectus of Baywater Finance, a company in respect of which Mr Y   had an interest.

[5]      I can understand Mr Y  ’s concern that, despite disclosure by the Judge he had had some prior judicial involvement with Baywater Finance, that Mr Keenan’s sentencing notes were not made available until well after the trial took place. I have explained to Mr Y  , and I think he accepts, that despite that concern, there is no sound basis for suggesting that Judge McLean was biased.

[6]      Mr Y  , having reflected on the situation, has decided he does not wish to pursue the matter any further. Mr Douch, for the Crown, accepts that position.

[7]      Accordingly, there is no need to proceed any further with what outwardly is an out of time application to appeal Judge McLean’s decision a second time. The matter is at an end.

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

Priestley J