Clements v The Queen of England [2019] NZCA 12 (18 February 2019)

Last Updated: 4 March 2019

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

CA569/2018 [2019] NZCA 12

	BETWEEN	MIRIAM CLEMENTS Applicant
	AND	THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND First Respondent PATSY REDDY Second Respondent JACINDA ARDERN Third Respondent NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT Fourth Respondent SUBORDINATES TO THE CRIME Fifth Respondents

Counsel:	Applicant in person No appearance for respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	18 February 2019 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

The application for review of the Registrar’s decision declining to waive payment of filing fees is declined.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

[1] This is an application to review the Registrar’s decision to refuse to grant a fee waiver. The application relates to a r 43 application for an extension of time.
[2] Ms Clements applied for a waiver of fees for her r 43 application and this was declined by a decision of the Registrar on 18 January 2019 in accordance with the Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001, reg 5(2). Ms Clements now seeks a review of this decision and has filed a supplementary argument.
[3] The Registrar may waive the fee payable if it is satisfied that either of the two limbs under reg 5(2) is met. Ms Clements’ application concerns the second limb, which requires that the proceeding concern a matter of genuine public interest and is unlikely to be commenced or continued unless the fee is waived.^[1] The Registrar was not satisfied that the criteria were met as Ms Clements indicated in her application that she was likely to commence or continue the proceeding regardless of the waiver being declined. Nothing in her supplementary argument changes this position.
[4] Ms Clements’ application, as noted by the Registrar, must also fail on the other requirement of reg 5(2)(b). The issues raised in the appeal are notionally of public interest, however, for the various reasons set out in the strike-out judgment which is the subject of the appeal, difficulties arise such that any public interest value is diminished.^[2] Orders are sought that the Court cannot make. The claim is difficult to understand and does not clearly identify decisions that are challenged. There is no clear cause of action pleaded and no valid grounds for judicial review have been put forward. As observed in French J’s decision reviewing Ms Clements’ earlier applications, the appeal would be concerned with these specific procedural issues, not the broader public implications.^[3]
[5] The application for review of the Registrar’s decision refusing to grant a waiver of fees is therefore declined.

---

^[1] Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001, reg 5(2)(b).

^[2] Clements v Queen of England [2018] NZHC 2244 at [25]–[34].

^[3] Clements v Queen of England [2018] NZCA 581 at [10].