W (CA186/2017) V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZCA 128
Leave to appeal out of time was granted and the extended supervision order was quashed because the convictions providing its jurisdictional basis had been quashed, eliminating the legal foundation for the order.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] NZCA 128
- Parties
- Appellant: W (CA186/2017); Respondent: Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 12 April 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Revocation of Extended Supervision Order / Court of Appeal (on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal out of time granted; extended supervision order quashed.
- Legal Topics
- Extended Supervision Order, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Quashing Convictions, Jurisdictional Basis for Post‑sentence Orders, Publication Restrictions
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
W (CA186/2017)
Appellant
Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Revocation of Extended Supervision Order / Court of Appeal (on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted against an extended supervision order
- 2 Whether an extended supervision order must be quashed if the underlying convictions are quashed
- 3 Whether revocation of the extended supervision order is appropriate given the quashing of convictions
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal out of time was granted and the extended supervision order was quashed because the convictions providing its jurisdictional basis had been quashed, eliminating the legal foundation for the order.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal out of time granted; extended supervision order quashed.
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal out of time granted.
- The extended supervision order made in the District Court at Christchurch on 12 September 2008 is quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
W (CA186/2017) V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZCA 128 [12 April 2017]NOTE: ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE APPELLANTPURSUANT TO S 140 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985 REMAINSIN FORCE.NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OFCOMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICEACT 1985.IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA186/2017[2017] NZCA 128BETWEEN W (CA186/2017)AppellantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentCourt: Harrison, Miller and Asher JJCounsel: P K Hamlin for AppellantS C Carter for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)12 April 2017 at 3 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal out of time is granted.B The extended supervision order made in the District Court at Christchurch on 12 September 2008 is quashed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Harrison J)[1] On 23 March 2017 this Court allowed an appeal by the appellant, W, against his conviction in the District Court in Hamilton in December 2004 on five charges of sexual offending against a male complainant, L.1 All the convictions were quashed and the Court ordered that W was not to be retried.[2] On 12 September 2008, on an application by the respondent in this appeal, the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, the District Court in Christchurch made an extended supervision order (ESO) against W. The order was made on the ground that W had been convicted of offending against L.[3] As a consequence of this Court's decision on 23 March 2017, thejurisdictional basis for the ESO has gone. W has now applied to this Court for: (1) leave to appeal out of time against the imposition of the ESO; and (2) an order for its revocation. The Crown does not oppose.[4] We are satisfied that leave should be granted and an order for revocation should be made as moved.[5] Orders are made accordingly.Solicitors:Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington for Respondent1 W (CA731/2015) v R [2017] NZCA 73.