Barnes v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-419-17 [2016] NZHC 819

BETWEEN
TUNGIA BARNES

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 27 April 2016

Appearances:

No appearance by or for the Appellant
C Ure for the Respondent

Judgment:

27 April 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J

Parties / Solicitors: The Appellant
Ms C Ure, Almao Douch, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

BARNES v POLICE [2016] NZHC 819 [27 April 2016]

maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, and possessing offensive weapons (a knife and a pair of scissors) in circumstances that prima facie showed an intention to use them to commit an offence involving the threat of violence, which has a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment.

[2] Ms Barnes pleaded guilty. She was sentenced for both offences to 12 months supervision with special conditions.

[3] Ms Barnes was represented by counsel in the District Court, but the notice of appeal was filed by her on her own behalf. There was no appearance by Ms Barnes today. Notice of the date of this hearing was given to Ms Barnes at the address provided by her in her notice of appeal. In any event, in respect of notice of the hearing, Ms Barnes attended a case management conference on 14 March 2016. As recorded in a minute of Palmer J of that date, he, in addition to the usual directions about submissions, directed that there be a hearing in this Court at 2:15 pm today. Ms Barnes was well aware of the hearing date.

[4] For the respondent, Ms Ure applies for an order that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution. That is an appropriate order to make in the circumstances I have outlined. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

[5] Notwithstanding that order it is appropriate briefly to make an observation on the merit of the appeal. But detail is not required. In the light of the summary of facts, which applied when Ms Barnes pleaded guilty, the sentence actually imposed was well within range. It was probably fairly lenient. In imposing the sentence Judge D M Wilson QC referred to material before the Court relating to Ms Barnes’
personal circumstances, which I do not need to go into.1 He also took account of the

fact that Ms Barnes has only two previous convictions with these having no material bearing on the sentencing before him. The conditions on the sentence of supervision
were tailored to the personal circumstances the Judge had adverted to.

1 Police v Barnes [2015] NZDC 17402.

Woodhouse J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tungia Barnes, the appellant, lodged an appeal against her conviction and sentence with the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry. Barnes was found guilty in the District Court of possession of a methamphetamine drug and possessing offensive weapons (a knife and a pair of scissors) with the intent to commit an offence involving the threat of violence. The New Zealand Police, the respondent, opposed the appeal. Barnes pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced to 12 months of supervision with special conditions. The appeal was heard on 27 April 2016, and Ms C Ure represented the respondent, while Barnes did not appear or have counsel present.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the appellant's failure to prosecute her appeal. The court also considered the merits of the appeal, albeit briefly, given that the appellant did not appear to pursue the appeal. Woodhouse J noted that Barnes was well aware of the hearing date and had attended a case management conference on 14 March 2016. Despite this, Barnes did not appear or have legal representation at the hearing.

Woodhouse J dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, emphasising that the appellant did not appear or have counsel present at the hearing. The judge also briefly observed that the sentence imposed by the District Court was within the appropriate range and likely lenient, considering Barnes' personal circumstances and the limited relevance of her previous convictions. The court found that the sentence was well tailored to the appellant's personal situation.

The court did not provide specific final orders beyond dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution. However, the decision clearly indicates that the appeal was not successful, and the original conviction and sentence remain in effect.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	27 April 2016
Appearances:	No appearance by or for the Appellant C Ure for the Respondent
Judgment:	27 April 2016