Buchanan v Police [2012] NZHC 1257 (6 June 2012)

Last Updated: 18 June 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-419-2 [2012] NZHC 1257

BETWEEN HUGH GRAHAM BUCHANAN Appellant

AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 6 June 2012

Counsel: No appearance by or on behalf of Appellant

SN Cameron for Respondent

Judgment: 6 June 2012

_{JUDGMENT OF BREWER J}

SOLICITORS/COUNSEL

Bridie Murphy (Auckland) for Appellant

_{Almao Douch (Hamilton) for Respondent}

BUCHANAN V POLICE HC HAM CRI-2012-419-2 [6 June 2012]

[1] On 19 October 2011, Judge RG Marshall in the District Court at Huntly convicted the appellant, Mr Buchanan, on one charge of obstruction under the Arms Act 1983 and one charge of unlawfully hunting on Department of Conservation land. By notice of appeal dated 15 November 2011, Mr Buchanan appealed his convictions and sentence.

[2] The appeal was set down for hearing on 28 March 2012. By memorandum dated 22 March 2012, counsel for the appellant, Bridie Murphy, sought an adjournment of approximately four to six weeks. The grounds advanced in support of the adjournment can, in general, be summarised as counsel not having had sufficient time to consider the appeal. The appeal was adjourned by Priestley J on

26 March 2012 and set down for today.

[3] Nothing further has been heard from Ms Murphy. I am advised that the registry tried to contact her earlier this week but has not been able to attract her attention. Ms Cameron for the respondent filed a memorandum dated 1 June 2012 setting out difficulties facing the appellant and noting that there would be difficulties in any event, given inaction by Ms Murphy, to the appeal proceeding today. Ms Cameron has also advised me that she has sent messages by facsimile and by mail to Ms Murphy and has had no response.

[4] The case has been called today. The appellant has not appeared and neither has Ms Murphy. On the face of it, Ms Murphy has acted unprofessionally – she has not complied with the Practice Note regarding appeals; she has not withdrawn the appeal; she has not communicated with the registry; she has not communicated with counsel for the respondent; and she has not appeared. Under these circumstances, I

_{dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.}

Brewer J