Tittleton v The Queen

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA755/2011

[2011] NZCA 51

BETWEEN GARY WALTER TITTLETON
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 28 February 2012

Court: Hammond, Priestley and Allan JJ

Counsel: R A Harrison for Appellant
D J Boldt for Respondent

Judgment: 28 February 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

B The appeal is remitted to the High Court for determination.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Hammond J)

This appeal against a forfeiture order came on for hearing before us today, on an application for leave to appeal, from a judgment of the District Court.
We are of the view that we have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It ought to have been filed in the High Court, as an appeal in a summary matter.
We decline the application for leave. We remit the appeal to the High Court for determination as a general appeal in a summary proceeding. The Crown undertakes to take no point of time and procedure to prevent the merits being determined in that Court.
It would be highly desirable for the appeal to be brought on in the High Court as a matter of urgency; this proceeding has been unhappily delayed for many months now.

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gary Walter Tittleton, the appellant, sought to challenge a forfeiture order made by the District Court in New Zealand, which was upheld in the High Court. The case was brought to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand for a hearing on an application for leave to appeal. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the forfeiture order or if it should have been filed in the High Court as an appeal in a summary matter.

The Court of Appeal found that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the forfeiture order. It held that the appeal should have been filed in the High Court, as it was a summary matter. Consequently, the Court declined the application for leave to appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court for determination. The Crown agreed to waive any procedural issues to allow the merits of the appeal to be determined in the High Court.

In summary, the Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the forfeiture order, which should have been filed in the High Court. The Court declined the application for leave to appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court for determination, with the Crown agreeing to waive procedural issues to allow the appeal to proceed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established