DAVID KEITH SILBY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZSC 46
The application was dismissed because s 114(2) of the Land Transport Act 1998 authorised the detective's stop, rendering the applicant's statutory challenge without merit, and because s 213(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 makes the Court of Appeal's refusal of leave final; the criteria for a direct appeal to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] NZSC 46
- Parties
- Applicant: David Keith Silby; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 7 April 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Application (dismissed)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Traffic Offences, Authority to Stop Vehicle, Statutory Interpretation, Leave to Appeal, Finality of Appellate Decisions
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Keith Silby
Applicant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Application (dismissed)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a detective not in uniform was authorised to stop the applicant under ss 113 and 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998
- 2 Whether leave to appeal to the Supreme Court could be granted given s 213(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and the criteria in s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 (leap-frog appeal)
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because s 114(2) of the Land Transport Act 1998 authorised the detective's stop, rendering the applicant's statutory challenge without merit, and because s 213(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 makes the Court of Appeal's refusal of leave final; the criteria for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court were not satisfied.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
DAVID KEITH SILBY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZSC 46 [7 April 2017]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 6/2017[2017] NZSC 46BETWEEN DAVID KEITH SILBYApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentCourt: Elias CJ, William Young and Arnold JJCounsel: Applicant in personC A Brook and S K Jameson for RespondentJudgment: 7 April 2017JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant challenges a judgment of the Court of Appeal1 refusing him leave to appeal against a High Court judgment2 which dismissed his appeal against his convictions and the sentences imposed on charges of driving too close behind another vehicle and using a mobile phone while driving.3 He also, in the alternative, seeks leave to appeal directly from the High Court judgment.[2] The police officer who witnessed the offending and stopped the applicant was a detective who was not in uniform. Basing himself on ss 113 and 114(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998, the applicant maintains that the detective had not been entitled to stop him. As the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments point out,1 Silby v New Zealand Police [2016] NZCA 592 (Cooper, Brewer and Peters JJ) [Silby (CA)].2 Silby v New Zealand Police [2016] NZHC 162 (Venning J) [Silby (HC)].3 New Zealand Police v Silby [2016] NZDC 25869 (Judge Becroft).this argument overlooks s 114(2) which authorised the course the detective took.4There is thus no substance in his complaints.[3] Under s 213(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, the judgment of theCourt of Appeal dismissing the application for leave to appeal is "final" whichprecludes an appeal to this Court from that decision. We are not prepared to grant leave for a leap-frog appeal (that is direct from the High Court judgment) given its lack of substance and the non-satisfaction of the criteria in s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.5[4] Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent4 Silby (CA), above n 1, at [15]–[20]; and Silby (HC), above n 2, at [16]–[22].5 This provision applies to this application despite the repeal of that Act: Senior Courts Act 2016, sch 5 cl 10.