ALEXANDER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 740
The High Court has no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal District Court pre-trial decisions that are not specified as appealable in s215 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011; accordingly the application for leave to appeal the AVL and cross-examination orders is dismissed for want of jurisdiction and the proper...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] NZHC 740
- Parties
- Appellant: Aaron Alexander; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 4 April 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Pre Trial Rulings / Leave to Appeal Application / High Court Application for Leave to Appeal a District Court Pre Trial Ruling
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Audio Visual Link (avl), Restriction on Personal Cross Examination, Appointment of Counsel to Conduct Cross Examination, Leave to Appeal Jurisdiction Under Criminal Procedure Act 2011 S215, Fair Trial / Right to Effective Defence
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Aaron Alexander
Appellant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Pre Trial Rulings / Leave to Appeal Application / High Court Application for Leave to Appeal a District Court Pre Trial Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal District Court pre-trial rulings not specified in s215 Criminal Procedure Act 2011
- 2 Whether the District Court's orders permitting AVL under s103(3)(c) and (d) Evidence Act 2006 and preventing personal cross-examination under s95(2) were appealable at this pre-trial stage
- 3 Whether the pre-trial orders unfairly prejudice the accused's ability to present an effective defence
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court has no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal District Court pre-trial decisions that are not specified as appealable in s215 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011; accordingly the application for leave to appeal the AVL and cross-examination orders is dismissed for want of jurisdiction and the proper remedy is appeal after trial if convicted.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- Leave to appeal the District Court's AVL order declined for lack of jurisdiction
- Leave to appeal the District Court's order preventing personal cross-examination and appointing counsel declined for lack of jurisdiction
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ALEXANDER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 740 [4 April 2023]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDNELSON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAWHAKATŪ ROHECRI-2023-442-04[2023] NZHC 740BETWEEN AARON ALEXANDERAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: 4 April 2023Appearances: Appellant in personJ M Webber for the RespondentJudgment: 4 April 2023JUDGMENT OF PALMER JSolicitors/CounselO'Donoghue Webber, Nelson[1] On the evening of 30 October 2021, the Police allege that Mr Aaron Alexander,aged 47, committed assault at the Tasman Bay Backpackers in Nelson. Theprosecution applied for the complainant to give evidence by audio-visual link (AVL)because he was apprehensive about giving evidence in the courtroom. On 27 January2023, in the Nelson District Court, Judge J E Reilly granted the application, under s103(3)(c) and (d) of the Evidence Act 2006 (the Act).1 She also ordered, under s 95(2)of the Act, that Mr Alexander, who is representing himself, is not to personally cross-examine the complainant and appointed counsel to assist the court to do so.2[2] Mr Alexander seeks leave to appeal the pre-trial ruling. He submits it will havean unfairly prejudicial effect on the proceeding and his right to offer an effectivedefence. He says the complainant is not the victim but the instigator. He says thecomplainant did not use the word "assault" in his statement to the Police and he saidin his victim impact statement that he did not have long-term emotional effects. MrAlexander said he was acting in self-defence. He has not had a good experience of acourt-appointed lawyer. In relation to jurisdiction, he believes he has a right of appealand the High Court directs the District Court on injustice.[3] Mr Webber, for the Police, submits the Court has no jurisdiction to grant leave.He is correct. Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 specifies the pre-trialrulings that are amenable to appeal if leave is granted for that purpose. It does notspecify either of the decisions Mr Alexander seeks to appeal. Accordingly, he cannotseek leave to appeal them before the trial. Mr Alexander is still able to appeal on thesegrounds but must wait until after the trial to do so, if the trial goes against him. He isable to defend himself and mount his defence of self-defence. The application forleave to appeal these two decisions, at this time, is declined for want of jurisdiction.Palmer J1 New Zealand Police v Alexander [2018](sic) NZDC 1308 at [12].2 At [13].