C v Police HC Napier CRI-2006-441-59

[2007] NZHC 1873

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2006-441-59

C

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         20 June 2007

Appearances: Mr B Webby for Appellant

Mr S B Manning for Respondent

Judgment:      20 June 2007

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Napier

Counsel:

Mr B Webby, Napier

C V NZ POLICE HC NAP CRI-2006-441-59  20 June 2007

[1]      Ms C   was convicted by the Justices of the Peace on two charges laid under s 10B of the Summary Offences Act 1981.   Both charges alleged that, being the parent of a child under 14 years of age, she left that child without making reasonable provision for the supervision and care of that child or under conditions that are reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

[2]      Quite apart from the merits of the case, counsel have raised a jurisdictional issue with me.    This relates to whether or not the Justices of the Peace had the requisite jurisdiction to determine charges laid under s 10B of the Act.

[3]      The jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace is prescribed within s 9A of the

Summary Proceedings Act 1957:

[9A     Jurisdiction of Justices in respect of summary offences

(1)     A Court presided over by 2 or more Justices has jurisdiction in respect of a summary offence in the following cases, and in no other case, namely:

(a)        In any case where the enactment creating the offence expressly provides that jurisdiction may be exercised by a Court presided over by a Justice or Justices:

(b)    In any case where by any enactment jurisdiction is expressly given to a

Justice or Justices:

(c)    In any case where the offence is an infringement offence

[4]      In  the  present  case  the  charges  were  laid  under  the  provisions  of  the

Summary Offences Act 1981.   Section 40 of that Act provides as follows:

40     Jurisdiction

(1)        Every offence against this Act shall be punishable on summary conviction by a District Court presided over by a Judge.

(2)         Notwithstanding  subsection  (1)  of  this  section,  a  District  Court presided  over  by  2  or  more  Justices  [or  one  or  more  Community Magistrates] shall have jurisdiction in respect of offences against sections 4,

7, 17 to 20, 22, 25, 26, and 30 to 38 of this Act.

(3)     Nothing in section 20A of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 (which prescribes a special summary procedure for certain minor offences) shall apply in respect of any offence against this Act for which the defendant has been arrested.

[5]      As can be seen, charges laid under s 10B of the Act are not capable of being determined by the Justices of the Peace.   For this reason the purported determination by them of the informations in the present case was effectively a nullity.    In those circumstances I have no option but to remit the informations to the District Court so that they can be heard and determined by a Judge.

[6]      I direct also that a copy of this judgment is to be sent to the Registrar of the District Courts in Napier, Hastings, Waipukurau and Dannevirke so that they will be aware of the issue in the future when allocating fixtures for charges laid under this section of the Act.

Lang J