The Queen v Chadwick [2009] NZCA 43 (2 March 2009)

Last Updated: 13 March 2009

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA748/2008

[2009] NZCA 43

THE QUEEN

v

BRADY ERROL CHADWICK

Hearing: 23 February 2009

Court: William Young P, Chisholm and Heath JJ

Counsel: Appellant in person
K A L Bicknell for Crown

Judgment: 2 March 2009 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by William Young P)

[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a judgment of the High Court dismissing his appeal against conviction on a charge of failing, without reasonable excuse, to answer police bail.
[2] In the District Court, the applicant was tried on this charge and two others, one alleging disorderly conduct and the other possession of a knife without lawful excuse. It was in respect of these latter charges that the applicant had been granted police bail. It is common ground that the applicant failed to answer his bail and he admits as much. It is clear that the applicant took the view that he should not have been prosecuted on the other charges and they were in the end dismissed. But the dismissal of those charges did not retrospectively excuse his earlier non-appearance. And at the hearing in the District Court the applicant did not point to anything else which could amount to a reasonable excuse. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the District Court judge found him guilty of failing to answer his bail.
[3] On appeal in the High Court, the applicant sought to rely on unrelated – or at best loosely related – complaints in relation to the police and the judiciary and other state agencies in relation to conduct (including poisoning him with the sap of the euphorbia plant) which he saw as provoking his non-attendance. Some of these complaints (and in particular those in relation to the judiciary) relate to events which post-dated his non-appearance. Simon France J saw nothing of merit in the applicant’s argument and dismissed both the appeal and a subsequent application for leave to appeal to this Court. The applicant’s response was to seek leave to appeal from this Court.
[4] There is no general right to a second appeal in relation to proceedings under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. A second appeal is permitted only with leave and only in relation to questions of law that are either of a general or public importance or which for some other reason ought to be submitted to the Court (see s 144(3) of the Summary Proceedings Act).
[5] When the applicant sought leave to appeal in the High Court, Simon France J was unable to discern a point of law raised by the appeal. We are in the same position.
[6] Accordingly we dismiss the application for leave to appeal.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington