TAIMING ZHANG v DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON [2021] NZSC 91

TAIMING ZHANG v DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON [2021] NZSC 91 [26 July 2021]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 72/2021[2021] NZSC 91BETWEEN TAIMING ZHANGApplicantAND DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTONRespondentCourt: William Young and Williams JJCounsel: Applicant in personJudgment: 26 July 2021JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for an extension of time to apply for leaveto appeal is granted.B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONSIntroduction[1] The applicant sought to file charging documents in the District Court in orderto pursue proposed private prosecutions. The charging documents were not acceptedfor filing by the District Court on the basis the evidence provided was not sufficient tojustify a trial.1 The applicant then sought to present documents for filing in the HighCourt seeking judicial review of the decisions of the District Court. The Registrar ofthe High Court did not accept the documents for filing. The applicant sought a review1 Zhang v Kibblewhite DC Wellington, 18 January 2021 (Judge Hastings); and Zhang v WojcickiDC Wellington, 18 January 2021 (Judge Hastings).of that decision. The proceedings were referred to Isac J. The Judge struck out bothclaims as an abuse of process.2 The applicant now seeks leave to appeal out of timedirectly to this Court from the decision of the High Court.Background[2] The first of the proposed private prosecutions was based on allegations that theChief Executive Officer of YouTube committed murder and manslaughter arising fromthe removal of a video about COVID-19 from YouTube. The second of the proposedprivate prosecutions reflected allegations that the Secretary for Justice had conspiredto defeat the course of justice. This alleged offence related to the rejection by a courtregistry officer of an electronic evidence bundle. The applicant says this reflects amore systemic issue which is inconsistent with the Evidence Act 2006.The proposed appeal[3] The applicant's case is that there was no proper basis for striking out the claims,both of which, it is said, complied with the High Court Rules 2016.[4] As the applicant wishes to appeal directly to this Court, the Court must besatisfied both that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear anddetermine the appeal and that there are exceptional circumstances that justify a directappeal.3 The applicant says the proposed appeal meets this threshold essentiallybecause the underlying case, that is, the private prosecutions he wishes to pursue, havemerit and are of substantial public importance. He maintains the lower Courts havemischaracterised the nature of his claims.Our assessment[5] The proposed appeal would challenge the application of the High Court Rulesdealing with strike-out for abuse of process. The appeal would turn on the Judge'sassessment that both claims were so deficient as to be incapable of remedy byrepleading. There is no challenge to the principles applied; rather, the challenge is to2 Zhang v District Court at Wellington [2021] NZHC 703.3 Senior Courts Act 2016, s 75(a) and (b).the outcome. That outcome turns on the particular circumstances of this case. Noquestion of general or public importance arises.4 Nor does anything raised by theapplicant give rise to any appearance of a miscarriage of justice.5 Against thisbackground, we are satisfied the proposed appeal has no prospects of success and thereare no exceptional circumstances warranting a direct appeal.Result[6] The application for leave to appeal is out of time. There is some explanationfor the delay, and given the delay is not lengthy, the application for an extension oftime is granted. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.[7] We add that the fact the applicant is self-represented does not excuse theintemperate and improper remarks about the judiciary in the materials supporting thisapplication.4 Section 74(2)(a). The other matters the applicant wishes to advance as giving rise to generalquestions have insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of leave.5 Section 74(2)(b).