TIARE WAAKA TIMOTI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZSC 104

TIARE WAAKA TIMOTI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZSC 104 [1 October 2020]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 70/2020[2020] NZSC 104BETWEEN TIARE WAAKA TIMOTIApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentCourt: Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJCounsel: Applicant in personJ M Irwin for RespondentJudgment: 1 October 2020JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant was charged with assaulting a police constable with intent toobstruct her in the execution of her duty and two charges of resisting a police constablein the execution of her duty. There were delays in bringing the case to trial and,ultimately, the Police applied to the District Court for leave to withdraw the charges.Leave was granted.1[2] The applicant applied to the District Court for an award of costs against thePolice. This was rejected in the District Court.2 The applicant appealed to the HighCourt, but the appeal was dismissed.31 New Zealand Police v Waaka-Timoti [2019] NZDC 26551 (Judge Ingram).2 New Zealand Police v Waaka-Timoti [2020] NZDC 3272 (Judge Ingram).3 Waaka-Timoti v Police [2020] NZHC 1541 (Davison J).[3] The applicant now seeks leave to appeal directly to this Court from the decisionof the High Court. The Court must be satisfied that there are exceptionalcircumstances justifying such a direct appeal, in addition to being satisfied that thecriteria for an appeal to this Court are met.4[4] The power to grant costs in criminal cases is provided for in the Costs inCriminal Cases Act 1967 (the 1967 Act). That Act defines "costs" in s 2 as meaning"any expenses properly incurred by a party in carrying out a prosecution, carrying ona defence, or in making or defending an appeal".[5] Both the District Court Judge and the High Court Judge referred to thedecisions of the Court of Appeal in R v Meyrick and Herlihy v R.5 In Meyrick, theCourt considered whether costs could be awarded to a self-represented litigant, as theapplicant was in relation to the prosecutions against him in the District Court. TheCourt concluded that the definition of "costs" referred to expenses incurred by way offees paid to barristers and/or solicitors, which meant that there was no jurisdiction forthe Court to award costs under the 1967 Act to a self-represented litigant.6 Meyrickwas applied by the Court of Appeal in Herlihy.7[6] The applicant filed extensive submissions in which he challenges the Police'sjurisdiction over him and, implicitly, the jurisdiction of the courts. Similar challengesto the jurisdiction of the courts based on Māori sovereignty have been dismissed bythis Court in the past, and there is no basis for distinguishing previous authority.8[7] We are satisfied that no point of public importance arises in relation to theissues surrounding the award of costs to a litigant in person. This Court has recentlyconsidered that issue in the context of a civil proceeding, where the rule that costscould not be awarded to a self-represented litigant was confirmed.9 There is no basisfor distinguishing that case in relation to costs in criminal cases. Nor do we considerthere is any risk of a miscarriage of justice if leave is declined.4 Senior Courts Act 2016, ss 74 and 75.5 R v Meyrick [2008] NZCA 45; and Herlihy v R [2020] NZCA 11.6 Meyrick, above n 5, at [17]–[18].7 Herlihy, above n 5, at [2].8 See, for example, Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10.9 McGuire v Secretary for Justice [2018] NZSC 116, [2019] 1 NZLR 335 at [88].[8] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent