Arora v Police

[2024] NZHC 3239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2024-419-000108

[2024] NZHC 3239

BETWEEN

KARAN ARORA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:

4 November 2024 (via VMR)

Appearances:

Appellant in person

A Penney for Respondent

Judgment:

4 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 November 2024 at 2:30 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………..

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Hamilton Copy to: K Arora

ARORA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 3239 [4 November 2024]

[1]    Karan Arora appeals the decision of Judge A I M Tompkins given in the District Court at Hamilton on 9 September 2024 in which the Judge:1

(a)decided not to discharge Mr Arora without conviction after Mr Arora had pleaded guilty to three charges of contravening a protection order,2 and charges of speaks threateningly3 and threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm;4

(b)entered convictions on all five charges; and

(c)sentenced Mr  Arora  to  three  months’  community  detention  and  12 months’ intensive supervision on terms set out in a pre-sentence report.

The offending

[2]    The charges arise from three incidents on 25 February 2024, 26 February 2024 and 10 May 2024 and all concern breaches of protection orders to which Mr Arora was subject.

[3]    According to the police summaries of facts, which were the bases on which Mr Arora pleaded guilty, the first incident involved Mr Arora arriving unannounced at

1.00 am on Sunday 25 February 2024 at the address of three victims covered by a temporary protection order served on Mr Arora on 29 January 2024. Mr Arora knocked on the door multiple times and called the victims for 10 minutes. The victims were too afraid to answer the door because they knew it was Mr Arora.

[4]    When arrested, Mr Arora initially denied knowing where the victims lived but, when confronted by a picture of him at the address, admitted that he had gone there because he wanted to get back with his ex-wife. When being processed at the

1      Police v Arora [2024] NZDC 21748 [Decision on appeal].

2      Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(a), 9 and 112(1)(a). Maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.

3      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a). Maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment or fine of

$2,000.

4      Crimes Act 1961, s 306. Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

Christchurch Police Station, Mr Arora demanded that the officers tell two of the victims that the third victim, their father, would be killed in India.

[5]    The second incident occurred while Mr Arora was in custody at Christchurch Men’s Prison from 26 February to 22 March 2024. While there, he wrote a number of letters to his former partner who was the subject of a final protection order against Mr Arora made on 20 December 2023.

[6]    The third incident occurred when Mr Arora replied multiple times to a Snapchat post by his former partner, including by making a comment that she should prepare the same food for her father’s funeral when he killed him.

[7]    A pre-sentence report dated 5 September 2024 recorded that Mr Arora had pleaded guilty to all the charges and that he indicated that he fully accepted the summaries of facts except that, with respect to the first incident, he said he had gone to the address because his former partner’s brother had contacted him to come over because Mr Arora really wanted to reconcile with his former partner.

The appeal

[8]    Although Mr Arora had representation from the Public Defence Service at the hearing before Judge Tomkins, he is unrepresented in the appeal.

[9]    Mr Arora’s notice of appeal does not state any grounds of appeal. Mr Arora has not filed any submissions in support of the appeal. Instead, in a memorandum dated 14 October 2024, Mr Arora requests reconsideration of the charges and sentence “due to manipulation and deceit by the respondent (New Zealand Police) and their reliance on false accusations made by a third party.”

[10]   In the memorandum, Mr Arora asks for time to provide all relevant evidence to the Court to show the charges were fabricated and requested reconsideration of the sentence which he said is negatively affecting his life and career.

[11]   No information is provided to support the allegations that the charges were fabricated. The third party is not identified. No substantive information is provided about the impact of the sentence on Mr Arora’s life and career.

The hearing of the appeal

[12]   At the hearing of the appeal, it became apparent that the allegations of fabricated charges do not relate to the charges to which Mr Arora pleaded guilty but to other charges he faces in the Manukau District Court.

[13]In essence, Mr Arora’s grounds of appeal are:

(a)he was manipulated into attending the victims’ address in the early hours of 25 January 2024 and that the subsequent offending was the consequence of his anger and inability to control himself;

(b)he had pleaded guilty to the charges because of the state of his mental health at the time;

(c)the sentence of community detention is taking a toll on his life and mental health and is an obstacle to securing a new job.

[14]   Ms Penney, counsel for the Crown, noted that the allegations of manipulation were in evidence before Judge Tompkins in an affidavit filed by Mr Arora. She submitted there was no evidence before the Court to show that Judge Tomkins had erred or that there had been a miscarriage of justice.

Discussion

[15]   I became aware of Mr Arora’s  memorandum late in the afternoon of Friday,  1 November 2024. In the circumstances, I saw no reason to adjourn the hearing set down for Monday, 4 November 2024.

[16]   At the hearing, I explained to Mr Arora that whatever may be the position regarding other charges he faces, that has no bearing on the conviction and sentence that he is appealing. I also explained that, in the face of his guilty pleas and given that,

as Mr Arora accepted, Judge Tomkins had Mr Arora’s affidavit giving his account of events, I had no basis for concluding that the Judge erred in declining his application for a discharge without conviction or that a miscarriage of justice had occurred the Judge erred in entering the convictions.

[17]   I also note that I find Mr Arora’s allegations of being manipulated to attend the victim’s address in the early hours of 25 January 2024 to lack credibility given the account of what happened in the police summary of facts. I am also sceptical about the veracity of Mr Arora’s claim that he pleaded guilty because he was under emotional stress.

[18]   Similarly, in the absence of any evidence to suggest there was an error in the sentence, I had no basis for concluding that a different sentence should be imposed. As Ms Penney observed, it is open to Mr Arora to seek adjustment of his sentence conditions upon presentation of a firm contract of employment.

Result

[19]   In accordance with ss 232(2)(c) and 250(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, I dismissed Mr Arora’s appeal.

G J van Bohemen J