Bullock v Police - [2012] NZHC 1374

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-404-102 [2012] NZHC 1374

RYAN CRAIG BULLOCK
Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 18 June 2012

Counsel: K Trotter for the Appellant
K Francis for the Respondent

Judgment: 18 June 2012

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Mr K Trotter, Barrister, Auckland
Mr K Francis, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland

BULLOCK V POLICE HC AK CRI-2012-404-102 [18 June 2012]

[1] Mr Bullock has appealed against the refusal of a District Court Judge to discharge him without conviction under s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002. This was on Mr Bullock’s pleading guilty to a charge of having possession for supply of the class B drug ecstasy.

[2] The essence of the facts is as follows. In September 2011 Mr Bullock, then aged 17 and at school, was seen by police in a carpark just after midnight. He was with a friend. The two of them were found to be consuming a drug. Police found tablets in Mr Bullock’s possession. 16 of these were ecstasy tablets. The remainder
– 40 tablets – were a class C drug. Mr Bullock claimed to the arresting police officer that they were for his own use. Later he admitted that he intended to sell some of them and the remainder were for his own consumption.

The District Court judgment

[3] Judge Ryan, after outlining the facts (in more detail than I have done) and the comprehensive submissions she received for Mr Bullock and for the Crown, turned to the assessment of the s 106 application under the three part enquiry in s 107. She accepted that the offending was at a low level of commerciality, but described it as nevertheless “of moderate seriousness”. The learned Judge expanded on this aspect and considered consequences of a conviction as follows:

[16] Nonetheless, I consider the High Court decision of Liang v Police (HC Wellington, AP38/03, 16 April 2003, Hammond J), a decision from Wellington which holds that the Court should not hide from decision making authorities, including employment boards and other tribunals, a history of convictions, and should leave it to such authorities to decide. This is especially if the conviction involved not just taking drugs, but drug dealing. I find that you would be able to explain to an authority, “Yes, I have been involved in drug dealing; it was on a minor scale. I have taken steps, including going to voluntary rehabilitation and I have overcome this.”

[17] I consider that a moderately serious offence like this should not be hidden from appropriate authorities. But I consider also that there are consequences to you; certainly there may be consequences that inhibit your travel, or may inhibit your academic career although as I pointed out, it only temporarily arrested the academic career of someone like Greg Newbold. I consider when it comes to disproportionality, I do not find that the consequences of conviction in this case are disproportionate.

Decision

[18] I accept that…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bullock v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NZHC 1374
Decision Date: 18 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Bullock v Police, Ryan Craig Bullock appealed against the District Court's refusal to grant him a discharge without conviction under section 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Bullock had pleaded guilty to possessing the class B drug ecstasy with intent to supply. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the District Court had correctly exercised its discretion in refusing the discharge, and whether the consequences of conviction were disproportionate to the gravity of the offending.

The District Court had considered the three-part inquiry outlined in section 107 of the Act. It found the offence moderately serious and declined to discharge Bullock without conviction, citing the potential consequences of the conviction on his future, such as inhibiting his travel or academic career. The High Court, however, found that undue emphasis had been placed on the nature of the offending without adequately considering the specific culpability of Bullock. The Court took into account a comprehensive psychological report that highlighted factors reducing Bullock's culpability, such as his young age, the impact of a new school environment, and peer pressures.

The High Court also disagreed with the District Court's view on the public interest in not hiding the offending from the community. It reasoned that the potential stigma and barriers to future employment, particularly in light of the low risk of reoffending, warranted a different conclusion. The Court concluded that the consequences of conviction were disproportionate to the gravity of the particular offending and exercised its discretion under section 106 to discharge Bullock without conviction.

The Court emphasised that its decision was based on the specific facts and evidence presented in this case, and it did not set a precedent for other cases involving school boys committing moderately serious offences. It also reminded Bullock of the importance of making the most of this opportunity and ensuring he did not reoffend.

Orders