PHILIP DEAN TAUEKI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZSC 125
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeal because s296 does not authorize a direct appeal to this Court from a refusal to dismiss and s297(1)(b) makes the High Court the first appeal court; accordingly the application for leave to appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] NZSC 125
- Parties
- Applicant: PHILIP DEAN TAUEKI; Respondent: NEW ZEALAND POLICE
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 23 September 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal — Application for Discharge and Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Discharge at Common Law, Section 147 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, Section 296 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, Section 297 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
PHILIP DEAN TAUEKI
Applicant
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Application for Discharge and Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s296 permits a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the refusal to dismiss under s147
- 2 Whether refusal to discharge at common law is subject to appeal
- 3 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction given s297(1)(b) designates the High Court as the first appeal court
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeal because s296 does not authorize a direct appeal to this Court from a refusal to dismiss and s297(1)(b) makes the High Court the first appeal court; accordingly the application for leave to appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
PHILIP DEAN TAUEKI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZSC 125 [23 September 2021]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 91/2021[2021] NZSC 125BETWEEN PHILIP DEAN TAUEKIApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentCourt: William Young, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJCounsel: Applicant in personF R J Sinclair for RespondentJudgment: 23 September 2021JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant, Philip Taueki, is facing a charge of assault in the District Court.He unsuccessfully sought a discharge, apparently both at common law and under s 147of the Criminal Procedure Act 20111 and now applies for leave to appeal directly tothis Court against the dismissal of his application.[2] In the judgment dismissing the application for a discharge, the District CourtJudge expressed the view that it was possible for the applicant to "appeal the ruling ona question of law".2 Presumably relying on what the District Court Judge said, theapplicant seeks to invoke s 296 of the Criminal Procedure Act in support of hisapplication for leave to appeal.1 New Zealand Police v Taueki [2021] NZDC 14263 (Judge Edwards).2 At [16].[3] Section 296 confers a right of appeal in relation to the dismissal of a chargeunder s 147; it does not extend a similar right in respect of the refusal of an applicationfor dismissal.3 To the extent to which the applicant's challenge is to the refusal todischarge him at common law, he faces the same problem. Assuming for the momentthat there is jurisdiction to grant such a discharge, the Act does not provide for a rightof appeal against a refusal.[4] There is a further jurisdictional issue. Under s 297(1)(b), the first appeal courtin relation to the judgment under challenge is the High Court. For this reason too, thisCourt has no jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeal.[5] The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed for want ofjurisdiction.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington3 [L] v R [2019] NZCA 329 at [35]–[36]; and [R] v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2016] NZCA471 at [19]–[24]. See also D (CA716/2015) v R [2016] NZCA 190 at [20]–[23]; and [C] v R[2021] NZSC 110 at [63] per William Young and O'Regan JJ.