ROBERT FRANK TERRY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZSC 137
There is no jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a Court of Appeal decision declining leave to bring a second appeal; further, the proposed appeal did not meet the statutory criteria for leave or for a direct appeal and was out of time, therefore the application for leave is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] NZSC 137
- Parties
- Applicant: Robert Frank Terry; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 30 November 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court / Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court Dismissed
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Second Appeal, Jurisdiction, Timeliness
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Robert Frank Terry
Applicant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court / Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a Court of Appeal decision declining leave to bring a second appeal
- 2 Whether the proposed appeal met the statutory criteria for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
- 3 Whether the proposed appeal could proceed as a direct appeal from the High Court decision and whether it was time-barred
Ratio Decidendi
There is no jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a Court of Appeal decision declining leave to bring a second appeal; further, the proposed appeal did not meet the statutory criteria for leave or for a direct appeal and was out of time, therefore the application for leave is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ROBERT FRANK TERRY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZSC 137 [30 November 2022]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROASC 107/2022[2022] NZSC 137BETWEEN ROBERT FRANK TERRYApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentCourt: Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJCounsel: Applicant in personH S Cunningham for RespondentJudgment: 30 November 2022JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant, Mr Terry, was convicted in the District Court of two charges ofdriving while disqualified and one charge of wilful damage by using a rock to damagea police car.1 His appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed by theHigh Court.2 Mr Terry now seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court ofAppeal dismissing his application to bring a second appeal.31 R v Terry [2021] NZDC 13487 (Judge Rielly). He was then sentenced to fines of $500 anddisqualified from driving for six months, as well as ordered to pay reparations and court costs:R v Terry [2021] NZDC 16962 (Judge Rielly).2 Terry v R [2021] NZHC 2838 (Edwards J).3 Terry v New Zealand Police [2022] NZCA 198 (Cooper, Peters and Palmer JJ).[2] There is no jurisdiction to appeal to this Court against a Court of Appealdecision declining leave to bring a second appeal.4[3] We comment that, in any event, this proposed appeal would not meet thecriteria for leave to appeal,5 and in particular, would not meet the requirements for adirect appeal to this Court from the High Court decision.6 Nothing raised by Mr Terrywould suggest that the Courts below erred in their analysis or that there was any riskof a miscarriage of justice.Result[4] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent4 Senior Courts Act 2016, s 71; Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 213(3); and Rangihuna v R [2022]NZSC 1 at [6]–[7].5 Senior Courts Act, s 74(2).6 Senior Courts Act, s 75. Such an application would in any event be some 11 months out of time.