LYNDSAY MONK v R [2021] NZSC 139

LYNDSAY MONK v R [2021] NZSC 139 [21 October 2021]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 95/2021[2021] NZSC 139BETWEEN LYNDSAY MONKApplicantAND THE QUEENRespondentCourt: Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJCounsel: Applicant in personZ A Fuhr for RespondentJudgment: 21 October 2021JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant has applied for leave to appeal to this Court. The decision thatprompted this is a decision of a Judge of the Court of Appeal, Courtney J.1 In thatjudgment, the Judge declined Mr Monk's application for review of a decision of theDeputy Registrar of that Court to refuse to accept for filing a notice of application forleave to appeal against a judgment of the District Court that was delivered in 2011.2[2] The background to the application is as follows:(a) Mr Monk and a Mr Cowlishaw were convicted of intentionally, andwithout claim of right, destroying ecological reserve vegetation, being1 Monk v R [2021] NZCA 313.2 Police v Monk DC Waitakere CRI-2009-090-8115, 7 October 2011 (Judge Mather).the property of the Department of Conservation, having no interest inthat property. Mr Monk and Mr Cowlishaw had created about threekilometres of tracks through the relevant reserve, cutting nativevegetation at 22 separate locations and carrying out significantconstruction work, amongst other things. The Judge convicted anddischarged both Mr Monk and Mr Cowlishaw and ordered them to payreparation of $500.(b) Mr Monk and Mr Cowlishaw appealed to the High Court, but theirappeal was dismissed.3 Their application to the High Court for leaveto appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed.4(c) Mr Monk and Mr Cowlishaw then applied to the Court of Appeal forspecial leave to appeal, but their application was dismissed.5(d) There the matter rested, until Mr Monk tried to file the notice ofapplication for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal referred to earlier.This was initially rejected by the Deputy Registrar of that Court on thebasis that it did not clearly identify what Mr Monk sought to appealagainst. He then tried to re-file the notice of application for leave witha further page entitled "Brief Summary", which said the proposedappeal related to the District Court proceeding and was a new matterthat had not previously been heard. He argued his appeal was madeunder the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, not the SummaryProceedings Act 1957.(e) Courtney J pointed out that, having already been declined leave toappeal by the High Court and special leave to appeal by the Court ofAppeal, Mr Monk's appeal rights had been exhausted.[3] The jurisdiction of this Court in criminal matters was, at the time, governed bys 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003. Section 10 of that Act provided that this Court3 Cowlishaw v Police [2012] NZHC 1244 (Allan J).4 Cowlishaw v Police [2012] NZHC 3183 (Allan J).5 Cowlishaw v R [2013] NZCA 240 (Arnold, Ellen France and Harrison JJ).may hear and determine appeals authorised by s 144A of the Summary ProceedingsAct. The categories of decisions listed in s 144A against which this Court could hearand determine an appeal did not include a decision of the District Court (and thus doesnot permit an appeal against any decision made in the District Court in this case). Italso did not include a decision of a Court of Appeal Judge on review from a decisionof the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of that Court (and thus does not permit an appealagainst the decision of Courtney J). Nor did it include a decision of the Court ofAppeal declining leave to appeal to that Court (and thus does not permit an appeal tothis Court against the 2013 Court of Appeal decision). No independent right of appealto this Court is conferred by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.[4] This Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the application for leave toappeal. We therefore dismiss the application.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent