TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZSC 100

TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZSC 100 [9 August 2023]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROASC 65/2023[2023] NZSC 100BETWEEN TANYA FELICITY DUNSTANApplicantAND ATTORNEY-GENERALFirst RespondentDISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAUSecond RespondentJDNThird RespondentCourt: Glazebrook, O'Regan and Kós JJCounsel: Applicant in personD Jones for First RespondentNo appearance for Second and Third RespondentsJudgment: 9 August 2023JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.B The applicant must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] Ms Dunstan applies for leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appealrefusing extension of time to appeal against a judgment of the High Court dismissingjudicial review of a decision of the District Court declining to authorise thecommencement of five private prosecutions.1 In a judgment delivered on1 DFT v Attorney-General [2023] NZCA 225 [CA judgment]; and Dunstan v The District Court atManukau [2021] NZHC 311 [HC judgment].26 February 2021, the High Court Judge concluded none of the grounds advanced forjudicial review had merit, and the application failed "by some margin".2[2] Almost two years later, on 28 December 2022, Ms Dunstan applied to theCourt of Appeal for extension of time to appeal the High Court judgment. On12 June 2023 the Court of Appeal declined the application, noting the unexplaineddelay, absence of public interest in the grounds advanced and the apparent absence ofany basis on which to conclude the High Court judgment might be properlychallenged".3Application for leave to appeal[3] Ms Dunstan advances 14 grounds. As Mr Jones submits for the respondent,they are difficult to understand and summarise. Several take issue with factual andprocedural findings. Others traverse "delays due to distress and exhaustive measuresto protect my children in all family court proceedings". Others assert intimidation andharassment, and misconduct, by various courts.Our assessment[4] None of the criteria for appeal provided in s 74(2) of theSenior Courts Act 2016 are made out here. The proposed appeal turns on its particularfacts. No question of general or public importance arises.4 Nor does anything raisedby Ms Dunstan give rise to the appearance of a miscarriage of justice.5Result[5] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.2 HC judgment, above n 1, at [62].3 CA judgment, above n 1, at [10]–[12].4 Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(a).5 Section 74(2)(b); and Junior Farms Ltd v Hampton Securities Ltd (in liq) [2006] NZSC 60,(2006) 18 PRNZ 369.[6] The first respondent having filed submissions on the application, the applicantmust pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for First Respondent