PORA v R CA108/2014 [2014] NZCA 74

PORA v R CA108/2014 [2014] NZCA 74 [17 March 2014]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA108/2014[2014] NZCA 74BETWEEN TEINA ANTHONY PORAApplicantAND THE QUEENRespondentHearing: 13 March 2014Court: O'Regan P, Wild and Miller JJCounsel: J G Krebs and I Squire for ApplicantM D Downs and Z Hammill for RespondentJudgment: 17 March 2014 at 11 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for bail is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by O'Regan P)[1] The applicant, Mr Pora, has been in prison for 21 years, having been sentenced to life imprisonment for rape, murder and aggravated burglary. He applied for, and was granted, leave to appeal against his convictions to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. His counsel, Mr Krebs, told us he expects the appeal to be heard in the last quarter of this year.[2] The applicant applied to this Court under s 55 of the Bail Act 2000 for bail pending the disposition of his appeal to the Privy Council.[3] We indicated to counsel at the hearing of the application that we would determine the issue of jurisdiction before hearing submissions on the merits. Having heard from Mr Krebs on that issue, we reached the clear conclusion that this Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the present application. We did not therefore go on to consider the merits.[4] We can set out our reason briefly. Section 55(1) says the section applies to a person who "is appealing [his or her] conviction or sentence, or both, to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court". The applicant's appeal is to neither this Court nor the Supreme Court. Section 55 does not apply to him.[5] Mr Krebs accepted that s 55 did not apply to a person whose appeal was to the Privy Council. But he said the Court should interpret s 55 broadly and accordingly appeals to the Privy Council should be seen as equivalent to appeals to the Supreme Court. There was, he said, no logical basis for any distinction between the two.[6] We accept that the applicant is exercising what is, in effect, a second appeal to the Privy Council which is similar in substance, though not in form, to a second appeal to the Supreme Court. But it would be wrong for this Court to read into s 55 words that are not there. This Court's jurisdiction is statutory, and it cannot assert a jurisdiction that Parliament has not given it.[7] The fact that this Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the present application under s 55 is not the end of the matter, however. There appears to be an alternative pathway to the obtaining of bail, but from the High Court rather than this Court. As was established by the Supreme Court's decision in Zaoui v Attorney-General, the High Court has an inherent jurisdiction to grant bail in situations where no statutory power exists and there is no statutory provision excluding such jurisdiction.11 Zaoui v Attorney-General [2005] 1 NZLR 577 (SC) at [30]−[31].Counsel for the Crown, Mr Downs, indicated to us that the Crown may wish to dispute that the inherent jurisdiction applies to the applicant's situation. We do no more, therefore, than indicate the possible avenue provided by the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. It will be for that Court todetermine whether the inherent jurisdiction applies and if so, whether it should be exercised in the applicant's favour.[8] We indicated to Mr Krebs that we considered the present application should have been made to the High Court. To facilitate the process of bringing an application before the High Court, we undertook to direct the Court of Appeal Registry to forward to the High Court Auckland Registry the material filed in this Court with a request that the High Court accept this as sufficient to initiate an application to the High Court for the grant of bail in its inherent jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal Registry has now done this.[9] Having decided this Court has no jurisdiction to grant bail, we formally dismiss the application. We express no view on the merits of the application.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent