Adamson v Police - [2015] NZHC 2031

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-404-196 [2015] NZHC 2031

BETWEEN
QUENTIN ALAN ADAMSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 25 August 2015

Counsel:

M Utting for the Appellant
M Anderson for the Respondent

Judgment:

26 August 2015

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 August 2015 at 4.30 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Utting Law, Milford

ADAMSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 2031 [26 August 2015]

[1] The appellant, Mr Adamson, was convicted on 14 July 2015 of possessing an offensive weapon and assaulting a person with a blunt instrument. He was sentenced to 80 hours’ community work and nine months’ supervision.

[2] Mr Adamson now appeals against the decision not to grant a discharge without conviction, and his sentence.

Facts

[3] The charges related to an incident on the morning of Sunday 25 January

2015. Mr Adamson’s neighbours across the street, who had recently moved in, had been having regular loud parties into the early morning. Noise control calls and discussions had apparently not resolved the issue. Around 4:30 am, Mr Adamson became increasingly agitated at the noise coming from the neighbour’s property. He took a sledgehammer with him, he says because he knew he would be outnumbered by drunk and potentially belligerent people and wanted to deter them from approaching him, and crossed the road to the neighbours’ property. The victim came out onto the front yard. Mr Adamson swung the sledgehammer at him, but he ducked. The victim suffered bruising to the side of his face.

[4] Mr Adamson’s affidavit records that he swung the sledgehammer in self- defence, though by pleading guilty to the Police summary of facts he has lost the ability to plead that defence. His affidavit also records that following the assault with the sledgehammer, he himself was assaulted and knocked unconscious. As a result he has lost some memory of the night in question. He suffered an injury to his left shoulder which has required ongoing physiotherapy, and paramedics carried out a check to make sure he had not been concussed during the assault. The victim impact statement, however, records that there was an ongoing fistfight after the sledgehammer was used.

[5] Mr Adamson’s most recent conviction dates from 1993. He has eight previous convictions arising from five different incidents, all related to traffic matters.

District Court Decision

[6] Mr Adamson pleaded guilty to charges of possessing an offensive weapon in a public place and assault with a weapon. Possession of offensive weapons or disabling substances under s 202A(4)(b) Crimes Act 1961 carries a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment. Assault with a weapon under s 202C carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

[7] On 14 July 2015 his application for a discharge without conviction was declined by Judge Maude in the North Shore District Court.

[8] The Judge correctly took the three-step approach in considering applications…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adamson v Police

Details

AGLC: Adamson v Police [2015] NZHC 2031
Case: [2015] NZHC 2031
Decision Date: 26 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quentin Adamson appeals against the decision of the North Shore District Court to refuse to grant him a discharge without conviction and his sentence. The appeal was heard by Duffy J of the High Court at Auckland. The appellant pleaded guilty to charges of possessing an offensive weapon in a public place and assault with a weapon. The District Court declined his application for a discharge without conviction, sentencing him to 80 hours’ community work and nine months’ supervision. The legal issues before the court were whether the District Court erred in its consideration of the appellant’s application for a discharge without conviction and in the imposition of sentence. The court found that the District Court had not fully transcribed its reasons for refusing to grant a discharge without conviction and that the appellant had established that the consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the offending. The court was satisfied that the consequences of a conviction, particularly the probable loss of the appellant’s job, would be out of proportion to the offending, especially considering the remedial measures he had taken. The appeal against conviction was allowed, and the refusal to discharge without conviction was set aside. The appellant was discharged without conviction on the two offences. The court accepted the respondent’s submission that a deduction of 30 hours should have been allowed in setting the community work sentence. The sentence of supervision was also inappropriate and was set aside.

Orders