Makiha v Police [2013] NZHC 532 (19 March 2013)

Last Updated: 10 July 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2012-470-45 [2013] NZHC 532

BETWEEN HENRY SOLOMAN MAKIHA Applicant

AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances: Applicant in person

N Belton for the Respondent

Judgment: 19 March 2013

JUDGMENT OF PRIESTLEY J

_{(On application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal)}

Counsel:

Crown Solicitors, Tauranga. N [e-mail]

Copy to:

The applicant

MAKIHA V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC ROT CRI-2012-470-45 [19 March 2013]

[1] On 7 February 2013 in the High Court at Rotorua I dismissed an appeal from a sentence imposed by Judge Wills in the Tauranga District Court in November

2012.1

[2] The applicant, who represented himself at the appeal hearing, had pleaded guilty to two charges of trespass. A third charge had been withdrawn.

[3] Because the applicant had been subjected to a custodial remand of nine days the Judge, having convicted him, ordered that he come up for sentence if called upon within the next six months.

[4] During the course of the appeal hearing the applicant referred on occasions to “unresolved” criminal matters involving him in the Tauranga District Court. Other issues which appeared to concern the applicant included his correct name and suggestions that he had mental health issues.

[5] Because there is no basis whatsoever to allow the appeal against either conviction or sentence I dismissed it.

[6] The applicant now seeks leave to appeal my judgment to the Court of Appeal. I proposed dealing with this application on the basis of filed submissions rather than convene a full hearing in the High Court at Rotorua. Appropriate directions were issued.

[7] Despite those directions the applicant has filed no submissions whatsoever. He has had a number of communications with a member of the Rotorua High Court Registry. His leave application refers to “unresolved issues and charges”. His reason for not filing submissions was that I was well aware of what those issues were. The applicant has further advised the Registry that the reason why he is seeking leave to appeal is to resolve the withdrawn trespass charge laid against him in the District Court last year. His complaint is apparently that my appeal judgment did not resolve this issue.

[8] There cannot possibly be any appeal to the High Court from a charge laid in the District Court which is withdrawn.

[9] The principles governing leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal (there being no second appeal right conferred by the relevant legislation) is well settled.2 A question of law must be identified in respect of which leave to appeal is sought. The question must be one of general and public importance which transcends the partisan interests of the parties.

[10] There is absolutely nothing in the applicant’s leave application which meets those criteria. Indeed his desire to go to the Court of Appeal in relation to a charge which has been withdrawn is impermissible.

[11] For these reasons the application is dismissed.

[12] I direct that the Rotorua Registry is not to spend any further time discussing with the applicant or assisting him with matters arising out of my 7 February 2013 judgment, this judgment, or his leave application generally.

[13] If the applicant wishes to seek leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal on a question of law (to which he has a statutory entitlement), there is nothing which I can do to stop him. I can, however, ensure that he does not engage more High Court resources on a mission which is as hopeless as it is fruitless.

..........................................
Priestley J