18 Sept 2023
The proceeding was a collateral attack on prior final appellate decisions and lacked particularisation of any reviewable decision by the named respondents, and therefore on the clear face of the record amounted to an abuse of process properly struck out under High Court Rules r 5.35B.
13 Dec 2022
The High Court held the District Court breached s 27 BORA by taking an unreasonable 19 months to determine the applicant's 16 July 2020 reconsideration request and granted a declaratory remedy; all other causes of action (including claims of ex parte breach, error of law about emailing, recusal, corruption, bias, conflict, failure of reasons and unreasonableness of refusing emailed copies) were dismissed because the Access Rules permit supervised inspection, the District Court and judges acted within their powers, delay was an oversight, and recusal/bias/corruption claims lacked substantive b…
10 Dec 2021
The High Court dismissed the appeal because the trial judge made a logical, evidence-based assessment accepting the victims' testimony corroborated by photographs and the appellant's admissions; the judge properly negated self-defence and lawfully convicted on assault, possession of offensive weapon and intentional damage; the 21-month delay was not unjustifiable or prejudicial such as to require a stay and was accounted for in sentencing; the judge's interventions in cross-examination were appropriate to ensure relevance and fairness and did not constitute judicial bias or cause a miscarriag…
12 Mar 2021
The LCRO's decision confirming the Standards Committee determination constituted an order enforceable as a judgment under s215 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006; the District Court correctly dismissed the without‑notice stay and review because the appellant had not complied with the duty of candour in his ex parte application and there was no unfairness requiring recall.
29 Jun 2020
Leave to appeal was declined because the asserted errors were either unsupported factual complaints or, on transcript review, showed no arguable error of law; the Employment Court judge's interventions were appropriate and predominantly intended to assist the litigant in person; serious allegations of corruption lacked evidential foundation; the matters did not raise issues of general or public importance warranting the Court of Appeal's consideration.
23 Jun 2020
The appeal is dismissed because the High Court correctly found the proceeding to be an abuse of process and an impermissible attempt to relitigate matters finally determined by the courts; finality of litigation and the repeated, vexatious conduct of the appellant justified striking out the judicial review and awarding costs.
16 Oct 2019
The application for an extension of time to appeal was declined because the applicant's guilty plea was made voluntarily with competent legal advice, there was no substantiated coercion or prejudicial judicial conduct connecting to a miscarriage of justice, and the grounds advanced are insufficiently strong to justify vacating the plea or granting an extension.
21 Dec 2016
Appellant was a voluntary self‑representative with capacity to participate in trial; despite cognitive impairment the trial was fair given overwhelming and corroborated Crown evidence and appellant's combative, diversionary conduct; cross‑examination on prior dishonesty convictions was properly permitted and jury directions were adequate; sentencing did not warrant mitigation for cognitive impairment because offending was deliberate and planned, but the three‑month uplift for historic prior offending was erroneous and is removed, reducing concurrent sentences from 3 years 3 months to 3 years…
25 May 2016
The application to transfer the recusal application under s26N(2) is declined because established practice and authority require the challenged judge to determine recusal applications, it would not be desirable to remove that judge's capacity to decide the matter, and the challenged judge's view is important for any subsequent review.
1 Jul 2015
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the proposed appeal does not satisfy s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003: it does not involve a matter of general or public importance, there is no appearance of a miscarriage of justice, it is not in the interests of justice for this Court to hear the appeal, and there are no exceptional circumstances to justify a direct appeal; the underlying High Court finding that the proposed judicial review was an abuse of process stands.