Matthew John Young v District Court at Hamilton

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 137/2015
[2017] NZSC 60

BETWEEN	MATTHEW JOHN YOUNG Applicant
AND	THE DISTRICT COURT AT HAMILTON Respondent

Court:	William Young, OʼRegan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person L Dunn for Respondent
Judgment:	3 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 16 December 2015 the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal declining to continue name suppression.[1] Ongoing name suppression was sought pending the hearing of an appeal against a decision of Moore J declining an application for judicial review in relation to name suppression.[2]
[1]Young v The District Court at Hamilton [2015] NZCA 584 (Randerson, French and Kós JJ).
[2]Young v District Court [2015] NZHC 2677.
The applicant indicated to the registry on 10 March 2016 that the application for leave to appeal would be abandoned. No notice of abandonment has been filed. Nor have any steps been taken to progress the application in a timely manner. The Registrar has been in contact with the applicant to attempt to progress the matter without success. Finally, on 11 April 2017, formal notice was given under s 338(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to the applicant that the application would be dismissed for non‑prosecution unless he rectified non‑compliance with the timetable.
No response has been received from the applicant to the notice. The application for leave is accordingly dismissed for non‑prosecution. In any event, the applicant’s name has been in the public domain for some time now and the appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of Moore J has been abandoned under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.

Solicitors:
Almao Douch, Hamilton for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application from Matthew John Young for leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal declining to continue name suppression. The case was dismissed by the Supreme Court for non-prosecution, as the applicant had failed to respond to notices and had not taken any steps to progress the matter in a timely manner. The applicant had previously sought ongoing name suppression pending an appeal against a decision of Moore J, declining an application for judicial review in relation to name suppression. The applicant indicated to the registry that the application for leave to appeal would be abandoned, but no formal notice of abandonment was filed. The Registrar had attempted to contact the applicant to progress the matter without success, and formal notice was given under s 338(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 that the application would be dismissed for non-prosecution unless the applicant rectified non-compliance with the timetable. No response was received from the applicant, and the application for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution.

The legal issues in the case centred around the applicant's failure to progress the application for leave to appeal in a timely manner, and the court's power to dismiss an application for non-prosecution under s 338(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The court considered whether the applicant's failure to respond to notices and take steps to progress the matter amounted to non-prosecution, and whether the dismissal of the application was appropriate. The court also considered whether the applicant's name had been in the public domain for some time and whether the appeal to the Court of Appeal had been abandoned.

The court held that the applicant's failure to respond to notices and take steps to progress the matter amounted to non-prosecution, and that the dismissal of the application was appropriate. The court noted that the applicant's name had been in the public domain for some time, and that the appeal to the Court of Appeal had been abandoned. The court held that the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal was appropriate and dismissed the application for non-prosecution. The applicant's name had been in the public domain for some time and the appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of Moore J had been abandoned under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The applicant had failed to respond to notices and take steps to progress the matter in a timely manner, and the court had dismissed the application for non-prosecution. The applicant's name had been in the public domain for some time and the appeal to the Court of Appeal had been abandoned.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established