Barnes v Police

[2016] NZHC 819

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