Monk v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 95/2021
[2021] NZSC 139

BETWEEN	LYNDSAY MONK Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person Z A Fuhr for Respondent
Judgment:	21 October 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant has applied for leave to appeal to this Court. The decision that prompted this is a decision of a Judge of the Court of Appeal, Courtney J.[1] In that judgment, the Judge declined Mr Monk’s application for review of a decision of the Deputy Registrar of that Court to refuse to accept for filing a notice of application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the District Court that was delivered in 2011.[2]
[1]Monk v R [2021] NZCA 313.
[2]Police v Monk DC Waitakere CRI‑2009-090-8115, 7 October 2011 (Judge Mather).
The background to the application is as follows:
(a)Mr Monk and a Mr Cowlishaw were convicted of intentionally, and without claim of right, destroying ecological reserve vegetation, being the property of the Department of Conservation, having no interest in that property. Mr Monk and Mr Cowlishaw had created about three kilometres of tracks through the relevant reserve, cutting native vegetation at 22 separate locations and carrying out significant construction work, amongst other things. The Judge convicted and discharged both Mr Monk and Mr Cowlishaw and ordered them to pay reparation of $500.
(b)Mr Monk and Mr Cowlishaw appealed to the High Court, but their appeal was dismissed.[3] Their application to the High Court for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed.[4]
(c)Mr Monk and Mr Cowlishaw then applied to the Court of Appeal for special leave to appeal, but their application was dismissed.[5]
(d)There the matter rested, until Mr Monk tried to file the notice of application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal referred to earlier. This was initially rejected by the Deputy Registrar of that Court on the basis that it did not clearly identify what Mr Monk sought to appeal against. He then tried to re‑file the notice of application for leave with a further page entitled “Brief Summary”, which said the proposed appeal related to the District Court proceeding and was a new matter that had not previously been heard. He argued his appeal was made under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, not the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.
(e)Courtney J pointed out that, having already been declined leave to appeal by the High Court and special leave to appeal by the Court of Appeal, Mr Monk’s appeal rights had been exhausted.
[3]Cowlishaw v Police [2012] NZHC 1244 (Allan J).
[4]Cowlishaw v Police [2012] NZHC 3183 (Allan J).
[5]Cowlishaw v R [2013] NZCA 240 (Arnold, Ellen France and Harrison JJ).
The jurisdiction of this Court in criminal matters was, at the time, governed by s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003. Section 10 of that Act provided that this Court may hear and determine appeals authorised by s 144A of the Summary Proceedings Act. The categories of decisions listed in s 144A against which this Court could hear and determine an appeal did not include a decision of the District Court (and thus does not permit an appeal against any decision made in the District Court in this case). It also did not include a decision of a Court of Appeal Judge on review from a decision of the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of that Court (and thus does not permit an appeal against the decision of Courtney J). Nor did it include a decision of the Court of Appeal declining leave to appeal to that Court (and thus does not permit an appeal to this Court against the 2013 Court of Appeal decision). No independent right of appeal to this Court is conferred by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
This Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the application for leave to appeal. We therefore dismiss the application.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an application from Lindsay Monk, who sought leave to appeal against a decision made by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal had declined Mr. Monk's application for review of a decision by the Deputy Registrar of that Court, who had refused to accept for filing a notice of application for leave to appeal against a judgment from the District Court. Mr. Monk and his co-defendant, Mr. Cowlishaw, had previously been convicted of destroying ecological reserve vegetation, and the Court of Appeal had already dismissed their application for special leave to appeal. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether it had the jurisdiction to hear Mr. Monk's application for leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the application for leave to appeal. Section 10 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 limited the Court's ability to hear appeals in criminal matters to those authorised by Section 144A of the Summary Proceedings Act. However, the categories of decisions listed in Section 144A did not include decisions from the District Court, decisions of a Court of Appeal Judge on review from a decision of the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of that Court, or decisions of the Court of Appeal declining leave to appeal. The Supreme Court also found that no independent right of appeal to the Court was conferred by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed Mr. Monk's application for leave to appeal.

In light of the above, the Supreme Court did not grant leave to appeal, and the application was dismissed. The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established