Van Houten v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2019-488-000039

[2020] NZHC 86

BETWEEN
DANIEL PAUL VAN HOUTEN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

Appellant in person

S Patia for the Respondent

Judgment:

5 February 2020

JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday 5 February 2020 at 10.30 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors:
S Patia, Marsden Woods Inskip Smith (Crown Solicitors), Whangarei Copy to the Appellant

VAN HOUTEN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 86 [5 February 2020]

[1] By judgment dated 12 December 20191 I dismissed the appellant’s application for leave to appeal four convictions out of time. I did so having regard to:

(a)The extended period since his convictions (nine and a half years).

(b)The fact that guilty pleas had been entered.

(c)The fact that the penalty imposed (supervision) has long since expired.

(d)The interests of the public in the finality of justice.

[2] Mr Van Houten now seeks leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal. He had earlier filed an appeal directly with that Court but was advised by the Registrar that an application for leave from this Court would first be necessary.

[3] The touchstone for any such application is whether there is some point of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal.

[4] I am not satisfied that this is the case having regard to the conclusions reached at paras [23]-[29] of my decision.

[5] I therefore decline Mr Van Houten’s application for leave to further appeal my decision.

Muir J

1 Van Houten v New Zealand Police [2019] NZHC 3266.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Daniel Paul Van Houten versus New Zealand Police was heard. Mr Van Houten, the appellant, sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his application for leave to appeal four convictions out of time, which was originally dismissed by Muir J on 12 December 2019. The case was reviewed on the papers, with the appellant representing himself and S Patia for the respondent. The judgment was delivered on 5 February 2020.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the appellant's application for leave to further appeal the earlier decision dismissing his application for leave to appeal four convictions out of time should be granted. The application for leave to appeal was assessed based on whether there was a point of sufficient importance that would outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal. The decision was made in light of the extended period since the convictions, the fact that guilty pleas had been entered, the penalty imposed (supervision) having long since expired, and the public interest in the finality of justice.

The court, Muir J, declined the appellant's application for leave to further appeal. The decision was based on the conclusions reached in the earlier judgment, where it was determined that the appellant's application did not meet the threshold for leave to appeal. The court found that there was no point of sufficient importance to warrant a further appeal.

In summary, the High Court upheld the earlier decision dismissing Mr Van Houten's application for leave to appeal four convictions out of time and further declined his application for leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established