Terry v The Queen

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA234/2014
[2014] NZCA 423

BETWEEN	ROBERT FRANK TERRY Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	25 August 2014
Court:	O'Regan P, Ellen France and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person M L Wong for Respondent
Judgment:	28 August 2014 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

Introduction

Mr Terry was charged with using a telephone for the purpose of annoying a person. The complainant was unable to attend the hearing, and a District Court Judge declined the police an adjournment. The police being unable to offer evidence, the prosecution was dismissed.
Mr Terry was refused travel expenses, the Judge noting both that medical reasons explained the complainant’s absence and that the police had earlier told Mr Terry they would seek an adjournment.
Mr Terry appealed against the refusal to award travel costs. Mander J dismissed the appeal, having reviewed the matter on the merits.[1] He refused leave to appeal.[2] Mr Terry now moves this Court for leave.
[1]Terry v Police [2014] NZHC 240.
[2]Terry v Police [2014] NZHC 660.
We agree with Mander J that the proposed appeal raises no question of law that ought to be submitted to this Court for decision, and for the reasons he gave. The application is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Frank Terry applied to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand to challenge the refusal of his application for travel expenses after the prosecution of his case was dismissed. The Court of Appeal consisted of O'Regan P, Ellen France, and Miller JJ. Terry was charged with using a telephone for the purpose of annoying a person, and the complainant was unable to attend the hearing. The District Court Judge declined the police's request for an adjournment, and the prosecution was dismissed as the police could not offer evidence. Terry was refused travel expenses by the Judge, who noted that the complainant’s absence was due to medical reasons and that the police had previously informed Terry that they would seek an adjournment. Terry appealed against the refusal to award travel costs, but Mander J dismissed the appeal, having reviewed the matter on the merits and refused leave to appeal. Terry now moves this Court for leave to appeal.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the proposed appeal raised a question of law that ought to be submitted to the Court for decision. The Court found that the appeal did not raise such a question, and agreed with Mander J's reasoning. The Court noted that the District Court Judge had considered the relevant factors and had declined the adjournment request on the basis that the complainant's absence was due to medical reasons and that the police had previously informed Terry that they would seek an adjournment. The Court of Appeal found that the appeal did not raise a question of law that ought to be submitted to the Court for decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Terry's application for leave to appeal, agreeing with Mander J's reasoning that the proposed appeal did not raise a question of law that ought to be submitted to the Court for decision. The Court noted that the District Court Judge had considered the relevant factors and had declined the adjournment request on the basis that the complainant's absence was due to medical reasons and that the police had previously informed Terry that they would seek an adjournment. The Court found that the appeal did not raise a question of law that ought to be submitted to the Court for decision. The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Terry's application for leave to appeal, and no further orders were made.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established