PRESCOTT v THE DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2017] NZHC 2828

PRESCOTT v THE DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2017] NZHC 2828

Judge Down made errors of law by failing to direct the applicant to file formal statements and exhibits under s 26(1)(b) and by obtaining and relying on Judge Sharp's civil judgment (material inadmissible in criminal context under s 50 Evidence Act); accordingly his directions of 27 January 2017 must be set aside in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 2828
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Peter Richard Prescott; First Respondent: The District Court at North Shore; Second Respondent: Malcolm Richard Denmead
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
17 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Review
Outcome
Application for judicial review allowed in part; Judge Down's decision of 27 January 2017 set aside in relation to perjury and false statement charges; no relief granted to strike judge's remarks; conspiracy charge not pursued by applicant
Legal Topics
Section 26 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, Private Prosecutions, Abuse of Process, Perjury, False Statements, Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice, Admissibility of Civil Findings (s 50 Evidence Act), Natural Justice
Criminal Procedure Judicial Review Evidence Administrative Law Section 26 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 Private Prosecutions Abuse of Process Perjury +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Richard Prescott

Plaintiff/applicant

The District Court at North Shore

First Respondent

Malcolm Richard Denmead

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Judge Down erred by failing to direct the applicant to file formal statements and exhibits under s 26(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Act 2011
  2. 2 Whether Judge Down erred by considering and relying on Judge Sharp's civil judgment and findings (admissibility under s 50 Evidence Act 2006)
  3. 3 Whether omission of the s 26(1)(b) step breached natural justice and s 27 NZBORA

Ratio Decidendi

Judge Down made errors of law by failing to direct the applicant to file formal statements and exhibits under s 26(1)(b) and by obtaining and relying on Judge Sharp's civil judgment (material inadmissible in criminal context under s 50 Evidence Act); accordingly his directions of 27 January 2017 must be set aside in relation to the perjury and false statement charges and the Registrar must refer the applicant's documents to a District Court Judge for direction under s 26(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review allowed in part; Judge Down's decision of 27 January 2017 set aside in relation to perjury and false statement charges; no relief granted to strike judge's remarks; conspiracy charge not pursued by applicant

Orders

  • Decision of Judge J C Down dated 27 January 2017 set aside insofar as it directed that the charging documents alleging perjury and making a false statement must not be accepted for filing
  • Order that the Registrar refer the applicant's private prosecution documentation to a District Court Judge for direction pursuant to s 26(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Act 2011