KARL TEANGIOTAU NUKU v R [2018] NZSC 111

KARL TEANGIOTAU NUKU v R [2018] NZSC 111 [20 November 2018]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 89/2018[2018] NZSC 111BETWEEN KARL TEANGIOTAU NUKUApplicantAND THE QUEENRespondentCourt: William Young, O'Regan and Ellen France JJCounsel: Applicant in personR K Thomson for RespondentJudgment: 20 November 2018JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant was tried jointly with Mikhail Pandey-Johnson on charges ofaggravated robbery and unlawful possession of firearms. They were found guilty bya jury in the District Court on both charges. The applicant's appeal against convictionand sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in a judgment delivered on 6 May2016.1 In October this year and thus well out of time, he applied for leave to appealto this Court in respect of his conviction and sought an extension of time to do so.[2] The reasons advanced by way of explanation for the delay in applying for leaveto appeal primarily involve the applicant's involvement in other litigation including:1 Nuku v R [2016] NZCA 179 (Winkelmann, Peters and Collins JJ).(a) challenging in other ways the results arrived at in the Courts below –an application to the Court of Appeal to recall its judgment and thenjudicial review proceedings essentially by way of collateral challengeof the convictions which resulted in judgments from the High Court,2the Court of Appeal3 and this Court (which dismissed first anapplication for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal decision4and secondly a recall application in respect of that judgment5); and(b) a claim associated with the conduct of a police officer and prison officerinvolved generally with the case.[3] The applicant's explanation for the delay is not compelling; all the more sogiven that, as this Court pointed out, there was scope for the view the judicial reviewproceedings were an abuse of process.6 If he wished to challenge the Court of Appealdecision, he should have applied to this Court for leave to appeal in a timely way. Inthose circumstances we decline the extension of time which he has sought.[4] In deciding not to grant an extension of time, we have had regard to theproposed grounds of appeal raised by the applicant. Each of the points he wishes toargue was fully addressed by the Court of Appeal and we see no appearance of errorin that Court's analysis. Nor does the case raise any question of public or generalimportance.[5] Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent2 Nuku v The District Court at Auckland [2016] NZHC 2237.3 Nuku v The District Court at Auckland [2017] NZCA.4 Nuku v District Court at Auckland [2018] NZSC 7 [Nuku (SC)].5 Nuku v District Court at Auckland [2018] NZSC 39.6 Nuku (SC), above n 4, at [6].