VAN HOUTEN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 86
Leave to further appeal was declined because there was no point of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal, having regard to the prolonged delay (nine and a half years), the guilty pleas, the expired supervision sentence, and the public interest in finality of convictions.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZHC 86
- Parties
- Appellant: Daniel Paul Van Houten; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 5 February 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal / Judgment on Leave Application
- Outcome
- Application for leave to further appeal declined.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Finality of Convictions, Out of Time Appeal, Guilty Plea, Expired Sentence
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Daniel Paul Van Houten
Appellant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal / Judgment on Leave Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant leave to appeal out of time
- 2 Whether there is a point of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal
- 3 Effect of delay, guilty pleas and expired sentence on leave to appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to further appeal was declined because there was no point of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal, having regard to the prolonged delay (nine and a half years), the guilty pleas, the expired supervision sentence, and the public interest in finality of convictions.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to further appeal declined.
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
VAN HOUTEN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 86 [5 February 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWHANGAREI REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAWHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHECIV-2019-488-000039[2020] NZHC 86BETWEEN DANIEL PAUL VAN HOUTENAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: Appellant in personS Patia for the RespondentJudgment: 5 February 2020JUDGMENT OF MUIR JThis judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday 5 February 2020 at 10.30 ampursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:Solicitors:S Patia, Marsden Woods Inskip Smith (Crown Solicitors), WhangareiCopy to the Appellant[1] By judgment dated 12 December 20191 I dismissed the appellant's applicationfor leave to appeal four convictions out of time. I did so having regard to:(a) The extended period since his convictions (nine and a half years).(b) The fact that guilty pleas had been entered.(c) The fact that the penalty imposed (supervision) has long since expired.(d) The interests of the public in the finality of justice.[2] Mr Van Houten now seeks leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal.He had earlier filed an appeal directly with that Court but was advised by the Registrarthat an application for leave from this Court would first be necessary.[3] The touchstone for any such application is whether there is some point ofsufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal.[4] I am not satisfied that this is the case having regard to the conclusions reachedat paras [23]-[29] of my decision.[5] I therefore decline Mr Van Houten's application for leave to further appeal mydecision.__________________________Muir J1 Van Houten v New Zealand Police [2019] NZHC 3266.