Reekie v Attorney-General (on behalf of the Department of Corrections) and Gentry [2010] NZCA 39 (26 February 2010)

Last Updated: 2 March 2010

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA132/2009

[2010] NZCA 39

BETWEEN NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE
Applicant

AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS)
First Respondent

AND MATTHEW GENTRY
Second Respondent

Court: William Young P, Chambers and Ellen France JJ

Counsel: Applicant in person
F J Sinclair for First Respondent
C L Garvey for Second Respondent

Judgment: 26 February 2010 at 12 noon

(on the papers)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of the judgment delivered by this Court on 15 December 2009 is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by William Young P)

[1] We are dealing with Mr Reekie’s application for recall on the papers as permitted by r 51(6) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
[2] It is sufficient for us to say that:

• (a) The appeal was lodged in this Court out of time and an extension of time was required. The applicant was put on notice that an extension of time might be required in the submissions of the first respondent of 25 June 2009.
• (b) That there was a reasonable explanation for the delay did not, of itself, entitle the applicant to an extension, (see [9] of the earlier judgment).
• (c) The claims based on alleged assault brought against Dr Gentry and the Attorney-General were untenable for the reasons given in [6], [7], [8], [10] and [11] of the earlier judgment and we see no reason to resile from the conclusions reached.
• (d) We saw the proposed appeal in relation to compensation under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 as insufficiently meritorious to warrant an extension of time; this for the reasons set out in [13] of the judgment.
• (e) The applicant’s many complaints about his treatment by the Department of Corrections are not material to the conclusions we reached and it is not our role, in the present context, to sort them out.
• (f) The applicant’s contention that the judgment was wrong and his desire to re-argue the case do not provide an appropriate basis for the exercise of the recall jurisdiction, see Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2).[1]

[3] Accordingly the application for recall of the judgment is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for First Respondent
Whaley & Garnett, Auckland for Second Respondent

---

[1] Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632.