HERLIHY v R [2020] NZCA 11
The Court declined the appellant's application for costs because the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 and precedent preclude awarding costs to self‑represented litigants, therefore the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to grant the requested costs on appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZCA 11
- Parties
- Appellant: Stephen Herlihy; Respondent: The Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 11 February 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Costs on Appeal (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Application for costs declined
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Self Representation, Protection Orders, Jurisdiction
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Stephen Herlihy
Appellant
The Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Costs on Appeal (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a self‑represented appellant is entitled to costs under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to award costs to a self‑represented appellant on appeal
- 3 Whether costs relating to the trial fall within the jurisdiction of the trial court
Ratio Decidendi
The Court declined the appellant's application for costs because the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 and precedent preclude awarding costs to self‑represented litigants, therefore the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to grant the requested costs on appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for costs declined
Orders
- Appellant's application for costs is declined
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HERLIHY v R [2020] NZCA 11 [11 February 2020]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA165/2017[2020] NZCA 11BETWEEN STEPHEN HERLIHYAppellantAND THE QUEENRespondentCourt: Brown, Duffy and Peters JJCounsel: Appellant in personJ E Mildenhall for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)11 February 2020 at 11.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe appellant's application for costs is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Brown J)[1] Following a jury trial in the District Court at New Plymouth in February 2017,Mr Herlihy was convicted of contravening a protection order by following a protectedperson, his ex-wife. His conviction appeal was allowed in December 2018 after itbecame apparent that the protection order applied only to the couple's two children.1It appears that all parties had proceeded on the misapprehension that there wasa protection order in place in respect of Mr Herlihy's ex-wife.1 Herlihy v R [2018] NZCA 569, [2018] NZFLR 824.[2] Mr Herlihy, who represented himself both at trial and on appeal, now seekscosts in connection with his successful appeal. However, a self-represented litigant isnot entitled to costs under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967.2[3] Consequently, we accept Ms Mildenhall's submission that this Court has nojurisdiction to grant Mr Herlihy's application for costs on his appeal.3 As a result hisapplication for costs in this Court is declined.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent2 R v Meyrick [2008] NZCA 45 at [18].3 Any application relating to the trial is a matter for the trial court: Banks v R [2016] NZHC 1596at [38].