Moseley v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2013-412-000029 [2014] NZHC 972

SCOTT EDWARD MOSELEY

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 9 May 2014 (On the papers)

Appearances:

Appellant in person
R D Smith for Respondent

Dateof Minute:

9 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Mr Moseley lodged an appeal against his conviction for indecent assault, entered on 6 August 2013, when he pleaded guilty to that charge.

[2] As recorded in my minute dated 3 April 2014, Mr Moseley failed to comply with timetabling orders made in the High Court on 18 December 2013. He then changed lawyers, instructing new counsel on 20 January 2014. However counsel duly sought leave to withdraw when Mr Moseley refused to give counsel further instructions after receiving counsel’s initial advice.

[3] Mr Moseley’s new counsel was given leave to withdraw and a hearing date scheduled for 17 March did not proceed. The appellant was advised that the appeal would be heard on 3 April 2014 at 10.00 am. Mr Moseley did not appear at the
appointed time.

MOSELEY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 972 [9 May 2014]

[4] My minute issued following Mr Moseley’s non-appearance directed Mr Moseley to either file submissions on appeal by 24 April 2014, or to instruct counsel and have counsel advise the Court by that date when he or she would be in a position to file submissions. I advised that if that direction was not complied with then, pursuant to s 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, the appeal would be dismissed at 5.00 pm on 24 April 2014.

[5] Since that date, registry staff have made contact with Mr Moseley. He advised he still wanted to continue his appeal and he was told to get in touch with the Legal Services Agency (LSA) for them to assign him a new lawyer.

[6] According to enquiries made of LSA in Dunedin, Mr Moseley did make contact with them, but has not complied with their request that he formally write to them explaining why he should get yet another legally aided lawyer. As at
7 May 2014, the officer at LSA in Dunedin confirmed to Court registry staff that

Mr Moseley had not replied to her repeated requests.

[7] Accordingly, as 10 working days’ notice of the intention to dismiss the appeal has been given to Mr Moseley by the Court, and his non-compliance with timetabling orders has not been rectified in that time, this appeal is dismissed pursuant to s 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

Solicitors:
Wilkinson Adams, Dunedin

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Scott Edward Moseley against his conviction for indecent assault was dismissed by the High Court of New Zealand, Dunedin Registry. Moseley had pleaded guilty to the charge and subsequently appealed his conviction. The appeal faced procedural challenges as Moseley failed to comply with the court's timetabling orders and changed legal representation multiple times. His new counsel sought to withdraw after Moseley refused to provide further instructions. The hearing, initially scheduled for March 17, was postponed, and Moseley was advised to appear on April 3, but he did not show up. Following his non-appearance, the court directed Moseley to file submissions by April 24 or instruct new counsel; otherwise, the appeal would be dismissed.

The legal issues before the court involved Moseley's failure to comply with court-imposed deadlines and his ongoing refusal to cooperate with assigned legal counsel. The court had to decide whether to proceed with the appeal or dismiss it due to Moseley's non-compliance with the court's directives and his inability to secure and maintain legal representation. The court had to balance the right to appeal with the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements and timelines.

The court, after considering Moseley's history of non-compliance with court orders and his failure to secure legal representation, found that Moseley had not met the necessary conditions to proceed with the appeal. The court noted that Moseley had been given ample opportunity to comply with the court's directives but had not done so. The court confirmed that it had provided Moseley with 10 working days' notice of its intention to dismiss the appeal, and Moseley had not complied with the court's instructions to file submissions or secure legal representation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed pursuant to section 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	9 May 2014 (On the papers)
Appearances:	Appellant in person R D Smith for Respondent
Dateof Minute:	9 May 2014