McGeachin v R [2018] NZCA 205 (22 June 2018)

Last Updated: 28 June 2018

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA730/2013 [2018] NZCA 205

	BETWEEN	LESLIE MCGEACHIN Appellant
	AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Kós P, French and Williams JJ
Judgment:	22 June 2018 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Application for recall declined.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Kós P)

[1] Mr McGeachin mounts a third attempt to recall this Court’s decision of 19 November 2015 dismissing his appeal against conviction.^[1]
[2] On 31 October 2016 Mr McGeachin filed an application for leave to appeal this Court’s decision to the Supreme Court and an application for an extension of time to apply for leave. On 24 February 2017 the Supreme Court declined both.^[2]
[3] On 27 October 2017 Mr McGeachin applied to this Court to recall our judgment dismissing his conviction appeal. Before any direction could be given by this Court, Mr McGeachin applied to the Supreme Court to recall its 24 February 2017 decision and to recall this Court’s 2015 decision. On 23 November 2017 we declined to deal with the application as a parallel application was still then extant before the Supreme Court.
[4] On 19 December 2017 the Supreme Court declined Mr McGeachin’s further applications for recall, noting:^[3]

An application to recall the judgment of the Court of Appeal is not an application this Court can deal with. It must be dealt with by that Court.

[5] On 29 January 2018 Mr McGeachin filed a further application with this Court to recall its 2015 judgment. We declined the application.^[4]
[6] Mr McGeachin now again asks this Court to recall our 2015 judgment. He also makes a “formal” request that this Court provide him with “complete unaltered casebooks of the victims’ EVIs transcripts”.
[7] Mr McGeachin presently has several applications for recall before the Supreme Court in relation to that Court’s decision declining leave to appeal. Among those complainants is one in substance identical to that presently before this Court: that evidential video interviews were edited prior to presentation to the jury. In particular, again, Mr McGeachin alleges evidence indicating collusion between the complainants was removed from that transcript.
[8] In Slavich v R we dealt with an application for recall of a judgment of this Court following the Supreme Court’s declination of leave to appeal.^[5] In declining that application we noted:^[6]

... it would very rarely be appropriate for this Court to recall one of its decisions where the Supreme Court has pronounced upon it.

And:^[7]

This Court’s inherent power to revisit its decisions is exercised only in exceptional circumstances when required by the interests of justice.

[9] These principles apply also to matters that the Supreme Court is presently seized of. It would be entirely inappropriate for this Court to deal with an application made on the same grounds as an extant application before the Supreme Court. That disposes also of the associated parallel application for complainant transcripts.

Result

[10] Application for recall declined.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

---

^[1] McGeachin v R [2015] NZCA 558.

^[2] McGeachin v R [2017] NZSC 16.

^[3] McGeachin v R [2017] NZSC 193 at [4].

^[4] McGeachin v R [2018] NZCA 12 at [7].

^[5] Slavich v R [2011] NZCA 586.

^[6] At [4].

^[7] At [5] citing R v Smith [2002] NZCA 335; [2003] 3 NZLR 617 (CA).