Parker v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2015-425-000003 [2015] NZHC 1103

DAVID RICHARD PARKER

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 21 May 2015 (On the papers)

Appearances:

Appellant in person
JNP Young for Crown

Judgment:

21 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] The appeal in this matter was set down for hearing in Invercargill on

4 May 2015 at 10.00 am. There was no appearance for Mr Parker.

[2] Prior to the hearing he had neither filed submissions, nor had he contacted the

Court to seek an adjournment of the hearing.

[3] In the circumstances, and before striking out the appeal, I issued a minute giving Mr Parker 10 working days in which to file submissions on his appeal, failing which he risked his appeal being dismissed for non-compliance with that procedural
order pursuant to s 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

PARKER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 1103 [21 May 2015]

[4] On 13 May 2015, and within the 10 working day timeframe, the appellant emailed the Court. His email first set out the content of my minute and then said the following:

Well i guess it it is time for a submission or should it be post'mission or post adventure, since this is adocument, there be oficial and all, queens speak and alternative, and the right to remain silent/salient, i like too speak in court , and with this computer radiating my never regions in the fineist brave heart tradition will keep this suksinked ( please not the obvious spelling Misstakes) .... the right to a fair trial and summing up and a trip to the supreme court would be nice since the door are kept locked ???? PLEASE could the paper/ and audio of the trial be made available ( and also the preceding court bail hearing and assciated charge aka possesions of weapon as well) , plus you might want to check my court history, please possibly a complete invortory ( of all the times) .... how many times have i chosen to be strung up.... the reason why i was not in court was because my freind had surgery and i had too clean her post 3 weeks not been able too clean house... justice or love...... so sorry i wasn't there..... The pertinent point is " i don't beleive a word you said, there for guilty, and the complete biased police evidence.... fair show(ing) please... dated 13 of May 2015, lucky for sum, of the Lord's Calendar; David Richard Parker..... Queens' Reticent Scholar'n'Hound... aka dave

ps were is my right to free counsel, with self represntation.... civil rights fairness... above board duke out please.... and you may call out my academic records of 7 + years of learning word, and role my arm over (thats a cricket reference)... fight the good fight, and "all for one, and one for all"...... till i see you in your hood, peace, over and out side... catch you on the flip side, dave.

[5] Despite the reference to “a submission” in the first line, I am satisfied that nothing that follows expands on, or explains, his grounds of appeal nor articulates the legal principles he is relying on. Indeed, the reverse is true, it is an entirely unhelpful document, which appears designed to mock the Court’s processes.

[6] A further email from Mr Parker followed shortly after attaching links to various youtube videos, describing them as “footnotes”.

[7] While I accept that Mr Parker’s email has explained why he did not attend Court on 4 May, because he was assisting a friend who had had surgery, it would have been a simple matter to contact the Court to seek an adjournment. Mr Parker did not take that step. He also has not complied with the requirement to file a document within 10 working days which could, in any sense, be said to be submissions on his appeal.

[8] Accordingly, in reliance on s 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Mr Parker’s

appeal is struck-out.

Solicitors:
Preston Russell Law, Invercargill

Dunningham J

David Richard Parker, the appellant, filed an appeal against New Zealand Police, the respondent, which was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Invercargill Registry. The nature of the dispute was an appeal against a conviction and sentence for the appellant, who was dissatisfied with the outcome of his criminal proceedings. The appeal was heard on the papers, without the appellant's physical presence, as he failed to attend the scheduled hearing and did not seek an adjournment.

The court was required to decide whether the appellant's appeal should be dismissed for non-compliance with procedural orders, specifically for failing to file written submissions within the specified timeframe. The appellant's email correspondence with the court, while explaining his absence from the hearing, did not contain any substantive arguments or legal principles relevant to the appeal. The court had to assess whether the appellant's communications could be considered as submissions on his appeal and if they met the required standards.

The court found that the appellant's email was not a proper submission, as it did not expand on or explain his grounds of appeal or articulate the legal principles he was relying on. The email appeared to mock the court's processes rather than providing a coherent argument. Despite the appellant's explanation for his absence from the hearing, he did not take the simple step of contacting the court to seek an adjournment. Furthermore, he failed to comply with the requirement to file a document within 10 working days that could be considered as submissions on his appeal. In light of these factors, the court dismissed the appellant's appeal under section 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

The court ordered that David Richard Parker's appeal against the New Zealand Police be struck out due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, specifically the failure to file written submissions within the specified timeframe. The court emphasised the importance of following procedural rules and the necessity for appellants to engage meaningfully with the court's processes to have their appeals considered.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	21 May 2015 (On the papers)
Appearances:	Appellant in person JNP Young for Crown
Judgment:	21 May 2015