	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Court of Appeal of New Zealand

Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Court of Appeal of New Zealand

You are here: NZLII >> Databases >> Court of Appeal of New Zealand >> 2005 >> [2005] NZCA 10

TAYLOR v R [2005] NZCA 10 (17 February 2005)

Court of Appeal of New Zealand

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

TAYLOR v R [2005] NZCA 10 (17 February 2005)

Last Updated: 20 April 2005

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA451/04

THE QUEEN

v

LEIGH-ANNE TAYLOR

Hearing: 16 February 2005

Court: Glazebrook, Robertson and Doogue JJ

Counsel: D A Ewen for Appellant
M F Laracy for Crown

Judgment: 17 February 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Leave to appeal is declined.

REASONS

(Given by Glazebrook J)

[1] Ms Taylor seeks leave to appeal against a pre-trial ruling of Judge Rota of 26 August 2004. The trial date is set for 23-24 March 2005 and Mr Ewen is trial counsel. Ms Taylor is on bail.
[2] Mr Ewen sought leave to withdraw on the basis that he had no instructions on the application for leave to appeal as he had not been able to contact his client for some time. Mr Ewen is trial counsel, however, and the application for leave to appeal was drafted by him. Accordingly, leave to withdraw is declined.
[3] Mr Ewen informed us that he has forwarded all correspondence relating to the appeal to Ms Taylor at her bailed address and that he has no reason to think that she has not received it or that she is unaware of the date of the hearing of her application for leave to appeal.
[4] It appears to us that Ms Taylor has chosen not to provide instructions to Mr Ewen in relation to her application for leave to appeal or to appear herself. No arguments in favour of leave being granted have therefore been advanced on her behalf. There is no reason to suppose that an adjournment would change that position. As the trial date is fast approaching, we consider that Ms Taylor’s application for leave should be declined, particularly as it was, in any event, filed out of time.
[5] Mr Ewen indicated that he did not oppose that course. Ms Laracy, given that indication from Mr Ewen, was also not opposed to the application for leave being declined.
[6] We note that this does not preclude Ms Taylor from raising the points that were the subject of this application in any subsequent appeal should she be convicted.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2005/10.html

[1]	Ms Taylor seeks leave to appeal against a pre-trial ruling of Judge Rota of 26 August 2004. The trial date is set for 23-24 March 2005 and Mr Ewen is trial counsel. Ms Taylor is on bail.
[2]	Mr Ewen sought leave to withdraw on the basis that he had no instructions on the application for leave to appeal as he had not been able to contact his client for some time. Mr Ewen is trial counsel, however, and the application for leave to appeal was drafted by him. Accordingly, leave to withdraw is declined.
[3]	Mr Ewen informed us that he has forwarded all correspondence relating to the appeal to Ms Taylor at her bailed address and that he has no reason to think that she has not received it or that she is unaware of the date of the hearing of her application for leave to appeal.
[4]	It appears to us that Ms Taylor has chosen not to provide instructions to Mr Ewen in relation to her application for leave to appeal or to appear herself. No arguments in favour of leave being granted have therefore been advanced on her behalf. There is no reason to suppose that an adjournment would change that position. As the trial date is fast approaching, we consider that Ms Taylor’s application for leave should be declined, particularly as it was, in any event, filed out of time.
[5]	Mr Ewen indicated that he did not oppose that course. Ms Laracy, given that indication from Mr Ewen, was also not opposed to the application for leave being declined.
[6]	We note that this does not preclude Ms Taylor from raising the points that were the subject of this application in any subsequent appeal should she be convicted.