Stace v Pierre [1993] CKHC 4; CA 02.1993 (13 May 1993)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE COOK ISLANDS
HELD AT RAROTONGA
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)
C.A. 2/93

BETWEEN

GRAEME CLIVE STACE
APPELLANT

AND

NGATUNGANE MAXIM PIERRE
of Takuvaine Rarotonga, Public Servant.
RESPONDENT

AND

MICHAEL CRAWFORD
of Arorangi, Rarotonga, Solicitor
RESPONDENT

Counsel: Mr Appleby for Appellant
Mr Arnold for Mr Pierre
Mr Mitchell in person

Date: 13 May 1993

JUDGMENT OF QUILLIAM J

The appellant laid informations against each of the respondents charging each of them with conspiring with the other to pervert the course of justice. The informations came before a Justice of the Peace and were apparently dismissed peremptorily. The appellant then appealed to the High Court and in a considered judgment Mr Justice Dillon dismissed the appeal.

The appellant has now applied for leave to appeal further to the Court of Appeal. The application is based upon what it is contended were procedural irregularities both for the Justice of the Peace and before Mr Justice Dillon. And it is upon that basis that application has been sought under S 60 of the Cook Islands Constitution Act upon the basis that there is a question involved which by reason of its general or public importance or the magnitude of the interest affected means that it ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision. The fact that this is based upon what are said to be procedural irregularities in itself' raises great doubt as to whether it is a matter which ought to trouble the Court of Appeal.

However in view of the course which this whole matter has taken the present situation seems to be perfectly clear. If there were indeed procedural irregularities then those were not apparently drawn to the attention of Mr Justice Dillon nor was there any application made to him, for instance, for the rehearing of the evidence, for the amendment of the information or for any other purpose. This was notwithstanding that the appellant was throughout represented by Counsel.

In these circumstances the appellant is in no position at all to wish to trouble the Court further upon it. I think I should add that in view of the fact that this relates back some nine years to a lengthy course of litigation it can be seen at once that it could never have been regarded as a matter of any grave importance. Had it been, then one would certainly have expected something to have happened long before this. The present application for leave is entirely without merit and it is declined.

QUILLIAM J.