Incident arose after woman accidentally brought man’s phone to her car
The Supreme Court has dismissed an application seeking permission to appeal convictions for assault and intentional damage upon finding no exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal, no merit in the leave application, and no risk of a miscarriage of justice.
In Cantwell v Police, [2025] NZSC 118, the applicant spent an evening in April 2023 at a man’s house. She accidentally took his phone as she was heading toward her car. When he went after her, she hit him twice on the head.
The man returned home to call the police. The applicant hurled a plant pot through the glass pane of his front door.
On 23 May 2024, the District Court convicted the applicant of assault and intentional damage, but acquitted her of theft. On 13 December 2024, the High Court rejected her conviction appeal.
The applicant applied for leave to appeal the High Court decision directly to the Supreme Court. She alleged that:
The Crown countered that the case had no exceptional circumstances justifying granting leave to directly appeal the High Court ruling to the Supreme Court, no matters of general or public importance, and no risk of a miscarriage of justice.
The Crown pointed out that the High Court allowed the applicant’s application to access the court record in an 18 December 2024 minute.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand granted the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal.
The Supreme Court accepted that the leave application dated 18 March 2025 was untimely because the applicant should have filed it by 16 January 2025.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the applicant explained why she failed to file on time. The Supreme Court saw no prejudice to the Crown and no significant delay period.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected the application seeking leave to appeal upon finding no exceptional circumstances meriting a direct appeal, no merit in the leave application, and no risk of a miscarriage of justice.
The Supreme Court noted that a direct appeal of a High Court decision required exceptional circumstances.
The Supreme Court said the High Court judge reviewed the evidence. The Supreme Court added that the applicant could fully access the court file.
