Lockett v Ministry of Justice Collections [2014] NZHC 50 (4 February 2014)

High Court of New Zealand

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

Lockett v Ministry of Justice Collections [2014] NZHC 50 (4 February 2014)

Last Updated: 13 February 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-419-51 [2014] NZHC 50

BETWEEN JAMIE BEATTIE LOCKETT Appellant

AND MINISTRY OF JUSTICE COLLECTIONS Respondent

Hearing: 4 February 2014

Appearances: No appearance by or on behalf of the appellant

S N Cameron for the respondent

Judgment: 4 February 2014

_{ORAL JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J}

Parties / Solicitors: Mr J B Lockett

Ms S N Cameron, Almao Douch, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

LOCKETT v MINISTRY OF JUSTICE COLLECTIONS [2014] NZHC 50 [4 February 2014]

[1] This is an appeal against a sentence of 3 months imprisonment arising out of an application for a substituted sentence for outstanding fines. The proceeding was pursuant to ss 88 and 106E of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

[2] The appeal was set down to commence at 10:00 am this morning. There was no appearance by or for Mr Lockett. At around 10:05 am I asked that Mr Lockett be called outside the courtroom. The officer in court who knows Mr Lockett did that at my request. He confirmed that Mr Lockett was not outside the courtroom and was able to advise me that, because he knows Mr Lockett, he would be likely to know whether he was in fact in the courthouse and he was not.

[3] As a consequence, application has now been made for the respondent for the appeal to be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

[4] In the normal course dismissal of the appeal on that basis would be appropriate and I do intend to make that order. Before doing so it is appropriate to record that Mr Lockett did apply for an adjournment of this appeal. That application was made by written memorandum dated 22 January 2014. It was opposed by the respondent. I issued a minute on 3 February (being the date on which the application was referred to me) advising that I was not prepared to adjourn the appeal on the written application but would give Mr Lockett an opportunity of advancing the application for an adjournment at the commencement of the hearing this morning. In that minute I recorded for Mr Lockett’s assistance that if an application for an adjournment is declined and he does not proceed with the appeal then it would be likely that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution.

[5] For the respondent, Ms Cameron advanced submissions to the essential effect that the application for the adjournment was not well founded. She also observed that, to the best of her knowledge, Mr Lockett has in fact served his sentence of 3 months imprisonment. It is unnecessary to weigh those particular matters and they are noted simply as part of the further record.

[6] Given Mr Lockett’s failure to attend court at the appointed time, and being a

time that he plainly is well aware of, the appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute it.

Woodhouse J