Benjamin Morland Easton v Governor-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 48/2012
[2012] NZSC 66

BETWEEN BENJAMIN MORLAND EASTON
Applicant

AND GOVERNOR-GENERAL
Respondent

Court: Tipping, McGrath and Chambers JJ

Counsel: Applicant in Person
D N Soper for Respondent

Judgment: 2 August 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

REASONS

Benjamin Easton brought a claim in the High Court seeking to challenge the Governor-General’s assent to the Care of Children Act 2004. His argument was essentially that Parliament erred procedurally in dealing with the Care of Children Bill and purporting to pass it into law. He said that the Act therefore was “invalid”. There was also a claim that the Governor-General had unlawfully dealt with a claim for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. The Governor-General successfully applied to have the claim struck out on the basis that it disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action.[1]
[1] Easton v Governor-General [2012] NZHC 206.
Mr Easton has appealed to the Court of Appeal. He sought a waiver of the filing fee on the basis that the appeal raised “a matter of public interest”. The Deputy Registrar declined the application. Wild J declined Mr Easton’s review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision, finding that she “was correct to treat the appellant’s claim against the Governor-General as hopeless” and holding that there could not be “any public interest in pursuing a hopeless case on appeal”.[2]
[2] Easton v Governor General [2012] NZCA 192 at [6].
Mr Easton now seeks leave to appeal from Wild J’s decision. The proposed appeal against Wild J’s decision has no chance of success. It does not involve “a matter of general or public importance”.[3] Nor will a substantial miscarriage of justice occur if leave is declined.[4] Mr Easton can after all continue with his appeal to the Court of Appeal if he pays the filing fee immediately and pays security for costs (unless waived by the Court of Appeal Registrar).
[3] Supreme Court Act 2003, s 13(2)(a).
[4] Section 13(2)(b).
Accordingly, we are not satisfied it is necessary in the interests of justice for this Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal. We dismiss the application. We order Mr Easton to pay costs to the Crown, which was put to expense in having to file submissions opposing the ground of leave.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Benjamin Morland Easton sought leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed his attempt to challenge the Governor-General's assent to the Care of Children Act 2004. Easton's initial claim in the High Court was that the Act was invalid due to procedural errors in its passage through Parliament, and that the Governor-General had unlawfully dealt with a claim for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. The High Court struck out his claim, and Easton's subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed as hopeless. Easton now sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the case involved a matter of public interest. The Supreme Court found that the appeal did not involve a matter of general or public importance and had no chance of success. Moreover, no substantial miscarriage of justice would occur if leave were declined.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the proposed appeal involved a matter of public interest, and whether declining leave would result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court found that Easton's appeal did not involve a matter of general or public importance, as it was based on a claim that had already been determined to be hopeless by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, the court held that declining leave would not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice, as Easton could still pursue his appeal to the Court of Appeal if he paid the filing fee and security for costs.

The Supreme Court dismissed Easton's application for leave to appeal, finding that it was not necessary in the interests of justice to hear and determine the proposed appeal. The court also ordered Easton to pay costs to the Crown, as the Crown had been put to expense in having to file submissions opposing the ground of leave. This decision reinforces the principle that leave to appeal will only be granted if the proposed appeal involves a matter of general or public importance and there is a chance of success. The court found that neither of these criteria were met in Easton's case.

The Supreme Court's decision highlights the importance of demonstrating a reasonable prospect of success and a matter of public interest when seeking leave to appeal. The court found that Easton's appeal did not meet these criteria, and accordingly dismissed his application for leave to appeal. The court also emphasised the importance of adhering to the rules and procedures for seeking leave to appeal, as Easton's failure to pay the filing fee and security for costs meant that he could still pursue his appeal to the Court of Appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established