MCGEACHIN v R [2018] NZCA 205

MCGEACHIN v R [2018] NZCA 205 [22 June 2018]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA730/2013[2018] NZCA 205BETWEEN LESLIE MCGEACHINAppellantAND THE QUEENRespondentCourt: Kós P, French and Williams JJJudgment: 22 June 2018 at 10 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTApplication for recall declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Kós P)[1] Mr McGeachin mounts a third attempt to recall this Court's decision of19 November 2015 dismissing his appeal against conviction.1[2] On 31 October 2016 Mr McGeachin filed an application for leave to appealthis Court's decision to the Supreme Court and an application for an extension of timeto apply for leave. On 24 February 2017 the Supreme Court declined both.2[3] On 27 October 2017 Mr McGeachin applied to this Court to recall ourjudgment dismissing his conviction appeal. Before any direction could be given by1 McGeachin v R [2015] NZCA 558.2 McGeachin v R [2017] NZSC 16.this Court, Mr McGeachin applied to the Supreme Court to recall its 24 February 2017decision and to recall this Court's 2015 decision. On 23 November 2017 we declinedto deal with the application as a parallel application was still then extant before theSupreme Court.[4] On 19 December 2017 the Supreme Court declined Mr McGeachin's furtherapplications for recall, noting:3An application to recall the judgment of the Court of Appeal is not anapplication this Court can deal with. It must be dealt with by that Court.[5] On 29 January 2018 Mr McGeachin filed a further application with this Courtto recall its 2015 judgment. We declined the application.4[6] Mr McGeachin now again asks this Court to recall our 2015 judgment. He alsomakes a "formal" request that this Court provide him with "complete unalteredcasebooks of the victims' EVIs transcripts".[7] Mr McGeachin presently has several applications for recall before theSupreme Court in relation to that Court's decision declining leave to appeal. Amongthose complainants is one in substance identical to that presently before this Court:that evidential video interviews were edited prior to presentation to the jury. Inparticular, again, Mr McGeachin alleges evidence indicating collusion between thecomplainants was removed from that transcript.[8] In Slavich v R we dealt with an application for recall of a judgment of thisCourt following the Supreme Court's declination of leave to appeal.5 In declining thatapplication we noted:6 it would very rarely be appropriate for this Court to recall one of itsdecisions where the Supreme Court has pronounced upon it.3 McGeachin v R [2017] NZSC 193 at [4].4 McGeachin v R [2018] NZCA 12 at [7].5 Slavich v R [2011] NZCA 586.6 At [4].And:7This Court's inherent power to revisit its decisions is exercised only inexceptional circumstances when required by the interests of justice.[9] These principles apply also to matters that the Supreme Court is presentlyseized of. It would be entirely inappropriate for this Court to deal with an applicationmade on the same grounds as an extant application before the Supreme Court. Thatdisposes also of the associated parallel application for complainant transcripts.Result[10] Application for recall declined.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent7 At [5] citing R v Smith [2003] 3 NZLR 617 (CA).