Chand v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-253 [2014] NZHC 2853

BETWEEN
DANIEL CHAND

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 17 November 2014

Appearances:

No appearance for Appellant
G E Hughes for Respondent

Judgment:

17 November 2014

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against conviction and sentence]

CHAND v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2853 [17 November 2014]

[1] Mr Chand was convicted in the District Court on a charge of assaulting a female. The Judge who sentenced him declined to discharge Mr Chand without conviction. Instead, he ordered Mr Chand to come up for sentence if called upon to do so within 12 months.1 Mr Chand has appealed to this Court against the Judge’s refusal to grant a discharge without conviction.

[2] On 4 November 2014, the Registrar sent out the required notice advising Mr Chand of the fact that the appeal would be heard today at 10 am. When the appeal was called, however, there was no appearance by Mr Chand or by counsel on his behalf. No submissions have been filed in support of the appeal. For that reason the Court must proceed on the basis that Mr Chand has elected not to prosecute his
appeal. It is therefore dismissed for want of prosecution.

Lang J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Copy to: Appellant

1 Police v Chand DC Waitakere CRI-2013-090-006653, 9 July 2014.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daniel Chand, the appellant, has appealed against his conviction and sentence in the District Court for assaulting a female. The District Court judge had declined to discharge Chand without conviction and instead ordered him to come up for sentencing if required to do so within 12 months. The appeal against the refusal of the discharge without conviction was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The respondent, New Zealand Police, was represented by G E Hughes.

The legal issue before the court was whether the refusal of the discharge without conviction by the District Court judge was correct. The court had to determine if there were any grounds for the appellant to argue that the refusal was an error. The appellant did not appear in court or file any submissions in support of the appeal, and no counsel appeared on his behalf.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court held that the appellant had elected not to prosecute the appeal. The Court noted that the appellant had not made any appearance or filed any submissions, and thus proceeded on the basis that the appellant had chosen not to continue with the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

No final orders were made in this case as the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The decision reinforces the importance of the appellant's participation in the appeal process and the consequences of not actively pursuing the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	17 November 2014
Appearances:	No appearance for Appellant G E Hughes for Respondent
Judgment:	17 November 2014