Brechelt v Police - [2017] NZHC 2955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-404-192 [2017] NZHC 2955

BETWEEN
JESSICA BRECHELT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 28 August 2017

Appearances:

J C Harder for Appellant
M L Clarke-Parker for Respondent

Judgment:

30 November 2017

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

This judgment is delivered by me on 30 November 2017 at 3.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
Justin Harder, Barrister, Auckland

BRECHELT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 2955 [30 November 2017]

Meredith Connell, Auckland

Summary

[1] Ms Jessica Brechelt was told by the Police she would be arrested for obstruction if she left her car where it was. Her response was “fuck that”. Her car obstructed a patrol car from moving for 10 to 20 minutes. The Police may have needed to move it. But, as it turned out, they did not. Ms Brechelt was convicted of intentionally obstructing a constable acting in the execution of his duty. I agree with the District Court Ms Brechelt was guilty of obstructing the Police in acting in the execution of their duty to put themselves in the position of being available to respond to other situations. But as to her sentencing, given the lack of any consequential effect of her obstruction, compared with the consequential effect on her of a criminal conviction, I discharge Ms Brechelt without conviction but maintain the order she pay court costs.

Facts

[1] On 20 September 2016, the Police were at Ms Brechelt’s partner’s business address for the purpose of impounding his ute. While the Police were waiting for a tow-truck to turn up, Ms Brechelt arrived and parked her car three to four metres away from the patrol car. After learning the Police intended to impound her partner’s car, Ms Brechelt entered the office at the address. She returned moments later, got into her car, and positioned it at a 45-degree angle across the left rear quarter of the patrol car. As a result, the Police could not move the patrol car and a tow truck would be unable to gain access to her partner’s ute.

[2] Constable Adam Osman told Ms Brechelt if she left her car there she would be arrested for obstruction. Ms Brechelt’s response was “fuck that”. Ms Brechelt did leave her car there and went back inside to collect her son. Between 10 and 20 minutes later, Ms Brechelt returned to her car and drove off. During the period the Police say their movement was restricted they, accept there was no need for them to be anywhere else and the tow truck did not arrive. So, as it turned out, Ms Brechelt’s refusal to move her car had no direct adverse consequence for the Police. Ms Brechelt pleaded

not guilty to a charge of intentionally obstructing a constable acting in the execution of his duty under s 23(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981.

District Court…

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 Brechelt v Police

Details

AGLC: Brechelt v Police [2017] NZHC 2955
Case: [2017] NZHC 2955
Decision Date: 30 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jessica Brechelt was convicted in the District Court of intentionally obstructing a police officer acting in the execution of their duty. She had parked her car in a manner that prevented the police from leaving their patrol car, which was required for impounding a vehicle. The District Court found her guilty and fined her $200, ordering her to pay court costs of $130. Ms Brechelt appealed against her conviction and sentence to the High Court. The High Court found that while she was guilty of obstructing the police, the direct and indirect consequences of her conviction were out of all proportion to the gravity of her offence. The High Court discharged Ms Brechelt without conviction and quashed her conviction and fine. However, it maintained the order for her to pay $130 court costs.

The legal issues in this case were whether Ms Brechelt was guilty of obstructing a police officer acting in the execution of their duty, and whether the District Court erred in not considering whether to discharge her without conviction. The High Court found that Ms Brechelt was guilty of intentionally obstructing the police, as her refusal to move her car prevented the police from executing their duty of being available to respond to other situations if required. However, the High Court found that the District Court erred in not considering whether to discharge Ms Brechelt without conviction. Given the lack of any consequential effect of her obstruction on the police, compared with the consequential effect on her of a criminal conviction, the High Court discharged Ms Brechelt without conviction.

Orders