PAUL ANDREW SNOWDEN v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2022] NZSC 18
Application for an extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay, the proposed grounds were thoroughly examined below and concerned only the particular circumstances of the case (not matters of general or public importance), and there was no risk of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] NZSC 18
- Parties
- Applicant: Paul Andrew Snowden; Respondent: Commissioner of Police
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 8 March 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal Against Civil Forfeiture Orders Under the Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 / Supreme Court Application for Extension of Time Following Court of Appeal and High Court Judgments
- Outcome
- Application for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Civil Forfeiture Under CPRA, Miscarriage of Justice, Public Importance
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Paul Andrew Snowden
Applicant
Commissioner of Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal Against Civil Forfeiture Orders Under the Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 / Supreme Court Application for Extension of Time Following Court of Appeal and High Court Judgments
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal should be granted
- 2 Whether the issues raised are of general or public importance
- 3 Whether there is a risk of miscarriage of justice that justifies granting an extension
Ratio Decidendi
Application for an extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay, the proposed grounds were thoroughly examined below and concerned only the particular circumstances of the case (not matters of general or public importance), and there was no risk of miscarriage of justice.
Court Disposition
Application for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
PAUL ANDREW SNOWDEN v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2022] NZSC 18 [8 March 2022]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 153/2021[2022] NZSC 18BETWEEN PAUL ANDREW SNOWDENApplicantAND COMMISSIONER OF POLICERespondentCourt: Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJCounsel: A G Speed for ApplicantM R Harborow and R S Ching for RespondentJudgment: 8 March 2022JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for an extension of time to apply for leaveto appeal is dismissed.B There is no order as to costs.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] Mr Snowden applies for an extension of time for leave to appeal. He seeks toappeal against a Court of Appeal judgment1 dismissing his appeal against theHigh Court judgment2 and allowing a cross-appeal by the Commissioner of Police (theCommissioner). The judgments relate to civil forfeiture orders under theCriminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (CPRA).1 Snowden v Commissioner of Police [2021] NZCA 336 (Kós P, Brewer and Davison JJ).2 Commissioner of Police v Snowden [2020] NZHC 2036 (Gault J).[2] Mr Snowden's application for leave to appeal is some three months out of time.The application for an extension of time is also opposed by the Commissioner.3Our assessment[3] Mr Snowden has not given sufficient explanation for the delay. In any event,the points he wishes to argue were thoroughly examined in the Courts below andlargely relate to the particular circumstances of his case. They therefore do not giverise to issues of general or public importance.4 Nothing raised by Mr Snowdensuggests a risk that the decisions in the Courts below may have been wrong andtherefore there is no risk of a miscarriage of justice.5Result[4] The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal isdismissed.[5] No costs are sought by the respondent, who accepts that Mr Snowden is legallyaided. We therefore make no order as to costs.Solicitors:Keam Law, Auckland for ApplicantMeredith Connell, Auckland for Respondent3 The Commissioner points to the effect of ss 82(2)(b) and 83(2)(b) of the Criminal Proceeds(Recovery) Act 2009 which means the forfeiture orders cannot be executed until all appeals arefinally determined. Counsel for Mr Snowden drew the Court's attention to ss 82(3) and 83(3) inresponse to the Commissioner's submissions.4 Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(a).5 Section 74(2)(b).