Terry v The Queen

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA422/2010
[2010] NZCA 475
BETWEENROBERT FRANK TERRY

Appellant

ANDTHE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:18 October 2010

Court:Hammond, Chisholm and MacKenzie JJ
Counsel:Appellant in person

M F Laracy for Respondent

Judgment:19 October 2010 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Application for special leave to appeal declined.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Chisholm J)
[1]        Robert Terry pleaded guilty in the District Court at Wellington to a charge that he had breached the Electoral Finance Act 2007 by failing without reasonable excuse to file a candidate’s election expenses return for the 2008 General Election at which he was a candidate. He was convicted and fined $400 by Judge Kelly.[1] His appeal to the High Court against conviction failed, and Mallon J refused leave to appeal to this Court.[2]
[1]      New Zealand Police v Terry DC Wellington CRI-2009-085-6651, 21 October 2009.
[2]      Terry v R HC Wellington CRI-2009-485-149, 15 June 2010.
[2]        Mr Terry now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. His application is futile. Both in the High Court and before us he accepted that he had made a deliberate and informed decision to enter a guilty plea and he does not seek to have the plea vacated. The plea was entered at the first call and Mr Terry, who is well aware of the system, did not make any request for the matter to be deferred.    He acknowledged to us that he was “testing the system”.
[3] His argument that, notwithstanding his plea, he was in fact not guilty of the offence because he had been charged under s 86 of the Electoral Finance Act 2007 rather than s 17 of the Electoral Amendment Act 2009 is without merit. Section 17(2) of the 2009 Act specifically preserves the duty under s 86 of the 2007 Act “as if it had not been repealed”. Given that Mr Terry deliberately entered a guilty plea at the first call his alternative argument that he was not given adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence in terms of s 24(d) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is also lacking in merit.
[4]        The application is declined.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Robert Frank Terry appealed against the decision of the High Court which had dismissed his appeal against his conviction and fine for breaching the Electoral Finance Act 2007 by failing to file a candidate’s election expenses return for the 2008 General Election. Mr Terry had pleaded guilty in the District Court and was fined $400. The appeal before the Court was an application for special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue in this appeal was whether Mr Terry's application for special leave to appeal should be granted. Mr Terry argued that he was not given adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence and that he had been charged under the wrong section of the Act. However, the Court found that Mr Terry had deliberately entered a guilty plea and had not requested a deferral, thus his arguments lacked merit.

The Court of Appeal held that Mr Terry's application for special leave to appeal was futile as he had deliberately entered a guilty plea and acknowledged that he was "testing the system". Furthermore, the Court found that the argument that he was charged under the wrong section of the Act was without merit as Section 17(2) of the 2009 Act specifically preserves the duty under Section 86 of the 2007 Act. The Court also found that Mr Terry's argument that he was not given adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence was lacking in merit as he had not requested a deferral.

The Court of Appeal declined Mr Terry's application for special leave to appeal. The Court found that Mr Terry's arguments were without merit and that his application was futile.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established