MURAAHI v R [2023] NZCA 586

MURAAHI v R [2023] NZCA 586 [22 November 2023]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA536/2022[2023] NZCA 586BETWEEN BENNY MILES MURAAHIApplicantAND THE KINGRespondentCourt: French, Courtney and Katz JJCounsel: Applicant in PersonC A Brook for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)22 November 2023 at 2.30 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for extension of time to appeal is declined.B The application for bail pending appeal is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Courtney J)[1] This judgment deals with Mr Muraahi's application to extend time to appealand his application for bail pending appeal. The matter has had a very unsatisfactoryhistory, but it is unnecessary to traverse it in detail. What follows is a brief summary.11 The background is set out in more detail in Muraahi v R CA536/2022, 17 August 2023.[2] In October 2022 Mr Muraahi filed a notice of appeal in respect of a sentenceimposed in March 2020, and also filed an application for bail pending appeal.[3] In a minute dated 13 October 2022, Miller J noted that the bail application didnot include "nearly enough" information and noted some of the reasons that it wouldbe difficult for Mr Muraahi to obtain bail.2 The Judge encouraged Mr Muraahi toconsider the matter further and talk to his lawyer, then to advise the Registrar whetherhe wished to proceed with the application. Mr Muraahi took no steps to advance theapplication.[4] Mr Muraahi's proposed ground of appeal was that his personal circumstanceshad not been properly considered. He indicated that he was seeking an extension oftime to bring the appeal. The only ground identified in support of such applicationwas the fact that the three strikes law had been repealed. Mr Muraahi was advised thatthe application for extension of time would be determined separately from the appeal,and on the papers.3[5] Initially Mr Muraahi was represented by Mr de Groot on a legal aid grant.The grant was subsequently withdrawn and in March 2023 Mr de Groot was grantedleave to withdraw on the basis that Mr Muraahi wished to advance the applicationhimself. Notwithstanding that indication, Mr Nabney was assigned to act on aninterim legal aid grant.[6] In June 2023 Mr Nabney sought leave to withdraw on the basis that he did notconsider there were grounds for an appeal and that he had advised Mr Muraahi andthe Legal Services Agency of his view.[7] On 30 June 2023 Mr Muraahi was directed to advise the Court within10 working days whether he wished to pursue his application for an extension of timeto appeal his sentence.4 Mr Muraahi took no steps.2 Muraahi v R CA536/2022, 13 October 2022.3 Muraahi v R CA536/2022, 1 February 2023.4 Muraahi v R CA536/2022, 30 June 2023.[8] On 17 August Mr Muraahi was directed to file a particularised application forextension of time to appeal and a particularised notice of appeal within 10 workingdays. He was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, it was this Court'sintention to dismiss the appeal pursuant to s 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.[9] Mr Muraahi has not complied with this formal notice. No reasonableexplanation for the continuing default has been provided.[10] We have therefore decided to decline the application for extension of time toappeal which effectively disposes of the appeal. This decision means that the issue ofbail pending appeal falls away. In these circumstances, the bail application is declined.Solicitors:Crown Law Office | Te Tari Ture o te Karauna, Wellington for Respondent