Brown v Police - [2016] NZHC 2359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-485-60 [2016] NZHC 2359

BETWEEN
MATTHEW BROWN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 3 October 2016

Appearances:

Appellant in Person
M L Wong for Respondent

Judgment:

5 October 2016

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J

Introduction

[1] Mr Brown faced a charge of wilful trespass.1 He did not appear for his trial

on 27 April 2016. The Judge proceeded in Mr Brown’s absence.

[2] In a reserved judgment delivered 4 May 2016 Judge Hastings found the charge of trespass proved and entered a conviction.2 Mr Brown appeals.

Background

[3] Under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, on 1 July

2014 Mr Brown was served with a trespass notice. Mr Brown himself, in his interview with the Police, explained the reason for service of the trespass notice. Following what he described as a peaceful protest in the foyer of Parliament he said he “stubbornly” refused to leave the foyer in the hope of meeting someone from the
Prime Minister’s office to “discuss the violations that have occurred”. Mr Brown

1 Trespass Act 1980, s 4(4).
2 Police v Brown [2016] NZDC 7644. At sentencing on 4 July 2016 Mr Brown was ordered to appear for sentence if called on within six months.

BROWN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2359 [5 October 2016]

knew that if he restricted himself to those areas where protest is allowed he would achieve nothing. He was trespassed from Parliament for two years.

[4] The charge on which he was convicted and which is the subject of this appeal arose when Mr Brown returned to Parliament on 10 November 2015. On his own description he walked into the foyer of the executive wing and notified security that he was there to breach the trespass notice. A security officer asked Mr Brown to accompany him outside where they waited for the arrival of a security supervisor employed by Parliamentary Services. The security supervisor, Mr Noanoa, was one of two witnesses called by the Police at the trial. Mr Noanoa’s evidence was that Mr Brown told him “he wanted to get arrested and go to Court”. At Mr Noanoa’s instigation a police constable arrived a few minutes later. The constable who also gave evidence at the trial, asked Mr Brown why he was there and Mr Brown replied “I have an axe to grind and this is the best way”.

[5] Mr Brown was asked to leave and was told “if you do not leave you will be arrested for wilful trespass”. He did not leave and was arrested accordingly.

The District Court decision

Mr Brown’s non-appearance

[6] Mr Brown did not appear on the day of his trial. The Judge considered whether he should proceed in Mr Brown’s absence. There was evidence before the Judge that Mr Brown was aware of the hearing date and time.

(a) In early February 2016 Mr Brown confirmed the trial date of 27 April

2016 by email.

(b) In…

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 2359
Case: [2016] NZHC 2359
Decision Date: 5 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Matthew Brown appealed against his conviction of wilful trespass, which was handed down in his absence by Judge Hastings. Mr Brown did not appear at his trial on 27 April 2016. The Judge proceeded in Mr Brown’s absence and found the charge proved. Mr Brown claims that he has been subjected to bias and prejudice and denied his right to present a defence at his defended hearing. Thus, he was denied his right to a fair and public hearing. As well, he has been denied the rights and benefits of the principles of natural justice through the refusal of the Courts to observe and adhere to the Human Rights Act 1993, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. The appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the evidence Mr Brown wished to present was irrelevant to the narrow issue raised by the appeal against the conviction for trespass. The evidence and exercise must be relevant to the appeal. The appeal process cannot be used for the purpose of airing grievances. The evidential basis upon which Judge Hastings found the charge proved was confirmed by Mr Brown to be correct. It was a sufficient evidential basis upon which to find proved the elements of the charge of trespass.

Orders