Jesse Waiariki Temanava Butler v North Shore Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 45/2016
[2016] NZSC 63

BETWEEN	JESSE WAIARIKI TEMANAVA BUTLER Applicant
AND	NORTH SHORE POLICE Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and OʼRegan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person K Laurenson for Respondent
Judgment:	13 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

At around midnight on 17 February 2014 the applicant was arrested by two police officers on a charge of assault. He was initially taken to the Takapuna Police Station and subsequently to the Henderson Police Station from which he was released on police bail at 4.18 am. He was later found guilty of assault.
He subsequently issued proceedings in which he claimed that the police officers involved in his arrest and subsequent detention had breached his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in various respects, including what he alleged to be torture and cruel treatment, and he alleged the police were guilty of misfeasance in public office. Following a trial at which the applicant and the police officers who had dealt with him gave evidence, Asher J dismissed the applicant’s claims.[1]
[1]Butler v Massey University Albany [2015] NZHC 2287.
The applicant’s notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal was filed out of time.[2] The reason for the delay was that he had, initially, mistakenly attempted to file an appeal in the High Court at Auckland. The respondent did not suggest that the resulting delay had caused it any prejudice. While recognising these considerations, the Court of Appeal refused to extend time for the appeal as it considered that the appeal was not arguable.[3]
[2]Butler v North Shore Police [2016] NZCA 150 (Harrison, Wild and Kós JJ).
[3]At [10]–[11].
Many of the arguments advanced by the applicant in his submissions in support of his leave application are at best only tangentially related to the events in issue and, to the limited extent to which he did focus on those events, he advanced nothing which would suggest that the Court of Appeal’s appreciation of the merits of his proposed appeal was erroneous. We see no question of public or general importance in the appeal and no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jesse Waiariki Temanava Butler sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal against a High Court decision. The High Court had dismissed his claim that police officers had breached his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 when they arrested him and detained him. The Court of Appeal found that his appeal was not arguable and dismissed it, but Butler now sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The central legal issue was whether the Court of Appeal's decision should be reviewed and, if so, whether the appeal was arguable. The Court found that the appeal was not arguable and there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

The Court noted that the applicant had filed his notice of appeal out of time, but this was not the central issue in the decision. The Court of Appeal had considered the delay and found that the appeal was not arguable, regardless of the delay. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal's assessment and found that the applicant's arguments were tangential and did not suggest that the Court of Appeal's appreciation of the merits of his proposed appeal was erroneous. The Supreme Court found that there was no question of public or general importance in the appeal and no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court concluded that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal's decision was affirmed and the applicant's appeal was dismissed. The Court did not see any grounds for the Supreme Court to intervene in the decision of the Court of Appeal.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, the decision of the Court of Appeal was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. The applicant's claims against the police officers were therefore dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established