Parnell-Titoko v Police

[2025] NZHC 2591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2025-419-70

[2025] NZHC 2591

BETWEEN

KARONNA-LEY PARNELL-TITOKO

Appellant

AND

NEW ZELAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:	4 September 2025
Appearances:	S Gilbert for Appellant K Dillon for Respondent
Judgment:	8 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 08 September 2025 at pm.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Riverbank Chambers, Hamilton Hamilton Legal, Hamilton

PARNELL-TITOKO v NEW ZELAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2591 [8 September 2025]

Introduction

[1]                Karonna-Ley Parnell-Titoko filed an appeal against the sentence imposed by Judge N Cocurullo in the Hamilton District Court on 19 June 2025.

[2]                The grounds of the appeal as filed were that Ms Parnell-Titoko had grounds to advance an application under s 81 of the Land Transport Act 1998 and was unable to advance the application.

Procedural history

[3]                At the time the appeal was filed Ms Parnell-Titoko had counsel acting for her, namely Mr Bell.

[4]                The matter was called in the criminal appeals list on 14 August 2024. There was no appearance for the appellant.

[5]                Mr Dillon appeared for the respondent and advised that it was understood that Mr Bell was acting for  the appellant but there had been no correspondence from   Mr Bell.

[6]                I directed that the matter be placed in a further criminal appeals callover on 28 August 2025.

[7]                I directed that a copy of the minute be provided to Mr Bell who was counsel on the record and said that if Mr Bell was not acting, he should seek leave to withdraw and advise the Court within five working days who is acting.

[8]                Mr Bell filed a memorandum on 19 August 2025 seeking leave to withdraw and advising that Ms Gilbert had been assigned.

[9]                Ms Gilbert subsequently advised that she had been assigned. However, she sought an extension until 22 August 2025 for filing the callover memorandum to allow her to take instructions.

[10]            Ms Gilbert filed the criminal appeals callover memorandum in accordance with the  criminal  appeals  checklist.   She  advised  that  she  had  been  assigned  on    18 August 2025 and did not receive disclosure or contract details for the applicant until 19 August 2025.

[11]            Ms Gilbert advised that she had been unable to make contact with the appellant. Attempts had been made to contact the appellant by phone using the number provided by previous counsel. A number of phone calls and text messages have been left since 19 August 2025.

[12]               Ms Gilbert advised that the phone sometimes rings and sometimes goes directly to voicemail. The voicemail message is for a “Karonna-Ley”.

[13]            Ms Gilbert advised she has emailed the appellant at an email address contained within disclosure obtained from previous counsel.

[14]            Ms Gilbert also posted a letter to the appellant on 20 August 2025 but anticipated it would not be delivered until the week of 25 August 2025. Ms Gilbert advised that she intended to hand deliver a letter to the appellant’s listed postal address over the following weekend.

[15]              As of 22 August 2025, counsel had no instructions enabling her to advance the appeal. Counsel suggested that the Court might adjourn the criminal appeals callover to permit instructions to be obtained.

[16]            Callover was then adjourned to 4 September 2025 to allow Ms Gilbert time to take instructions.

[17]            The matter was then called on 4 September 2025. Ms Gilbert appeared for the appellant and Mr Dillon appeared for the respondent.

[18]            Ms Gilbert said that she made repeated attempts to contact the appellant. She confirmed with previous counsel that the contact details are correct. She has been to the appellant’s address. Letters have been left at the address and there have been multiple phone calls and messages left, as well as email contact.

[19]The appellant has not responded.

[20]As I said in an earlier minute, it is for an appellant to prosecute their appeal.

[21]            The Criminal Procedure Act 2011 does not specifically provide for the Court to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution.1 However, that is clearly a course open to the Court where an appellant fails to progress an appeal.  In  Motuliki  v  R  the  Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal for want  of  prosecution.2  Similarly,  in  Mangu v R the Court of Appeal found that dismissal of an appeal for non-appearance of the appellant or counsel acting on their behalf was an “entirely conventional outcome”.3

[22]            Ms Parnell-Titoko has made no contact with the court herself and has not responded to attempts by her assigned counsel. Nor has she made any contact with her trial counsel.

[23]            In the circumstances I am satisfied that Ms Parnell-Titoko has failed to prosecute the appeal.

[24]The appeal is dismissed.

Wilkinson-Smith J

1      For the powers to abandon or dismiss an appeal, see Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 337–338. At s 338 the appellate court may dismiss an appeal for non-compliance with procedural orders.

2      Motuliki v R [2021] NZCA 260.

3      Mangu v R [2015] NZCA 151 at [6].