NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
	
IN THE Supreme court OF new Zealand

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA	
 SC 24/2023
 [2023] NZSC 111	

	
BETWEEN	
S (SC 24/2023)
Applicant	
	
AND	
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
First Respondent

DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND 
Second Respondent	

Court:	
Glazebrook, Williams and Kós JJ	

Counsel:	
Applicant in person 
Z R Hamill and W P So for First Respondent 
H M Carrad for Second Respondent 	

Judgment:	
23 August 2023	

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

	A	The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 18 July 2023 (S (SC 24/2023) v Attorney-General [2023] NZSC 86) is dismissed.

	B	There is no order as to costs.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS
[1]	On 18 July 2023, this Court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to bring a direct appeal to this Court against a decision of the High Court.  The applicant had brought judicial review proceedings challenging a District Court Judge’s decision to commit him to trial, which the High Court struck out as an abuse of process.  The High Court also dismissed a parallel application for (effectively) bail pending the determination of the proceedings.  The applicant now applies for recall of this Court’s decision. 
[2]	The general rule is that a judgment, once delivered, must stand for better or worse, subject to appeal.  A judgment will only be recalled in exceptional circumstances.  A recall application cannot be used to relitigate the reasons for refusing leave.  Recall will be appropriate where some procedural or substantive error has occurred that would result in a miscarriage of justice.
[3]	The applicant’s arguments relitigate points already raised in his submissions and rejected by this Court in refusing leave to appeal.  He also argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction to refuse an application for leave to appeal made under s 75 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.  
[4]	Nothing raised by the applicant meets the threshold for a recall application to be granted.  The jurisdictional argument is misconceived.  
Result 
[5]	The application for recall is dismissed.
[6]	As there was no need to hear from the respondents, there is no order as to costs.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents