PN (SC 24/2022) v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZSC 30

PN (SC 24/2022) v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZSC 30 [30 March 2022]NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES,ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OFAPPLICANT/DEFENDANT/VICTIM(S)/CONNECTED PERSONS REMAINSIN FORCE: [2019] NZHC 2177.IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 24/2022[2022] NZSC 30BETWEEN PN (SC 24/2022)ApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentCourt: William Young and Ellen France JJCounsel: Applicant in personJudgment: 30 March 2022JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant was convicted after a judge-alone trial of various chargesincluding threatening to kill and threatening to do grievous bodily harm.1 His appealagainst conviction and sentence to the High Court was dismissed.2 The Court ofAppeal declined to grant leave to appeal to bring a second appeal against convictionand sentence.31 New Zealand Police v [PN] [2018] NZDC 17777 (Judge P S Rollo).2 [PN] v New Zealand Police [2019] NZHC 2177 (Cull J).3 PN v New Zealand Police [2021] NZCA 658 (Collins, Duffy and Dunningham JJ) [CA judgment].[2] The applicant's application for leave to appeal to this Court from the decisionof the Court of Appeal was rejected for filing by the Deputy Registrar. This was onthe basis that the Court has no jurisdiction to consider the proposed appeal. Theapplicant sought a review of the Registrar's decision which has been referred to us.[3] We have treated the application as an application for leave to appeal. As theDeputy Registrar advised the applicant, there is no jurisdiction for this Court to hearthe proposed appeal. Under s 213(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, a decisionof the Court of Appeal dismissing an application for leave to appeal is "final", whichprecludes an appeal to this Court from that decision.4 None of the provisions referredto by the applicant affect that position.[4] Nor would there be any point at this stage in the Court treating the applicationas an application for leave to appeal directly from the High Court judgment. Theapplicant says he has Vodafone phone records which would show that he was not theauthor of various threatening messages but those records have not been provided tothe Court. The Court of Appeal in its judgment addressed various complaints theapplicant made about the non-production of "Vodafone records" and appointedcounsel to assist the Court to investigate if third-party disclosure issues could bepursued with Vodafone both in New Zealand and in Australia.5 Counsel assistingsubsequently advised the Court that records had been obtained for the relevant periodfrom Vodafone Australia and handed to the applicant. The applicant did not providethis information to the Court of Appeal but said that what was provided was not thecorrect information. The Court of Appeal drew the inference that the informationreceived did not assist the applicant.6 The position is no different before this Court.[5] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.4 Lihou v R [2015] NZSC 161; Gorgus v R [2016] NZSC 161; Silby v New Zealand Police [2017]NZSC 46; and Pese v R [2017] NZSC 77.5 CA judgment, above n 3, at [19]–[23].6 At [23].