Brown v Police - [2016] NZHC 2884

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2016-412-23 [2016] NZHC 2884

BETWEEN
MATTHEW RICHARD BROWN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 14 November 2016

Appearances:

Appellant in Person
M Grills for Respondent

Judgment:

1 December 2016

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] Matthew Brown was convicted in the Dunedin District Court of one charge of unlawful trespass under the Trespass Act 1980.1 He was fined $500 together with Court costs of $130.2 He has appealed both his conviction and sentence.

Background

The offending

[2] On 27 May 2015, Mr Brown was served a trespass notice by an employee of Dunedin Centre City New World warning him to stay off its premises for a period of two years. On 16 November 2015 at about 8.00 am, Mr Brown deliberately went to the Centre City New World in violation of the notice. He then went to the Dunedin Police Station and advised the police he had breached the notice, effectively turning himself in. He requested to be arrested for trespass. He was subsequently arrested
and charged with wilful trespass under ss 4 and 11 of the Trespass Act 1980.

1 Police v Brown [2016] NZDC 12706.
2 Police v Brown [2016] NZDC 17000.

BROWN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2884 [1 December 2016]

The hearing

[3] On 6 July the following year, Judge Turner heard the case against Mr Brown. Prior to evidence being called, Mr Brown requested the court issue summonses against a number of persons whom Mr Brown wished to call as witnesses. Judge Turner declined to allow the summonses to be issued.3 He held the proposed witnesses were not relevant to anything of consequence in the determination of the proceeding.

[4] Mr Brown sought to defend the proceeding on the basis the trespass notice could only be issued if he had engaged in unlawful activity. He considered that New World had discriminated against him by issuing the notice of trespass so he intentionally breached it to get his case before the court. Judge Turner did not accept Mr Brown’s defence and held the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the offence required to find Mr Brown guilty of the charge. Namely, that Mr Brown had been warned under s 4 of the Trespass act to stay off New World’s premises, and he had wilfully trespassed on that premises within two years of the warning.

[5] The Judge convicted Mr Brown and remanded him for sentencing.

The sentencing

[6] Judge Turner noted that Mr Brown had previous convictions for trespass in

2003 and 2009. In assessing the gravity of the offending the Judge noted it was premeditated although there was no suggestion that Mr Brown acted in an inappropriate way when breaching the notice.

[7] The Judge considered a fine was necessary to hold Mr Brown accountable for his behaviour and to deter him from acting in a similar way in the future. He
therefore fined him $500 and ordered him to pay 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 Brown v Police

Details

AGLC: Brown v Police [2016] NZHC 2884
Case: [2016] NZHC 2884
Decision Date: 1 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Richard Brown, the appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence for wilful trespass under the Trespass Act 1980. The case was heard by Manderson J in the High Court at Dunedin. The appeal was against his conviction for breaching a trespass notice served on him by New World supermarket. The appellant had deliberately breached the trespass notice, turned himself in to the police, and requested to be arrested. He was subsequently charged with wilful trespass under ss 4 and 11 of the Trespass Act 1980. The appeal was also against the sentence imposed on him. The appellant argued that he was denied a fair trial as a result of the trial Judge's refusal to allow summonses to be issued in respect of the people the appellant had nominated as witnesses. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction as there was no suggestion the supermarket had acted on prohibited grounds of discrimination in trespassing the appellant. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed as there was no evidence to suggest the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Orders