Chapman v Police - [2017] NZHC 2307

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI 2017-483-008 [2017] NZHC 2307

BETWEEN
GRANT CHAPMAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 19 September 2017 (via AVL)

Appearances:

Appellant Self Represented
M Wilkinson-Smith for the Respondent

Judgment:

25 September 2017

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1] Grant Chapman pleaded guilty to a single charge of wilful damage on

17 May 2017. He was sentenced in the District Court to pay reparations to the victim, Mr Morriss, whose car Mr Chapman had damaged with his key. Mr Chapman appeals against the sentence on the basis that the quotes for the repairs obtained by Mr Morriss were inflated and do not represent the true cost of the repair work. He has obtained two alternate quotes for the repairs. This appeal is out of time. Mr Chapman is self-represented.

Factual background

[2] Mr Chapman was charged with wilful damage under s 11(1)(a) of the

Summary Offences Act 1981 in relation to an incident in late 2016 where he

scratched the victim’s Holden Commodore Senator with a key.

CHAPMAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 2307 [25 September 2017]

[3] Mr Morriss provided two panel beater quotes to Police in relation to repair of the damage. One of these quotes was for $3036 and the other for $2595.41 (both GST inclusive). Mr Chapman pleaded guilty and was sentenced on 17 May 2017 at the Marton District Court. Judge Crayton ordered reparations of the lower quote of
$2595.41, despite Mr Chapman’s objections that both the quotes given were “way over the top”.1

[4] Mr Chapman was not represented at sentencing. He alleges that on the day he was told to see the Duty Solicitor and had not seen him before he was called before the Judge and told to pay reparations as ordered.

[5] The quotes Mr Morriss obtained read:

(a) “Remove and replace: left front and left rear door trims, chrome, badges, handles. Repair and paint: left side of vehicle and rear bumper. Total = $3036 including GST” from Hunterville Panel and Paint Ltd.

(b)“Repairs to left side of car & paint R/Rs l/headlight, l/guard vents, l/f/door fittings, mirror, l/r/door fittings, boot trims, tail light. Repairs to l/f/door, l/r/door, Paint l/f/guard, l vent panel, l/f/door, door handle, l/r/door, door handle, l/r/guard, blend l/cant rail, f/bumper.” Total =
$2595.41 from Marton Panel & Paint Ltd.

[6] The two quotes Mr Chapman obtained in the months after the reparation order read:

(a) “Holden Commodore Paint L/F guard, L/F door, L/R Blend L/R guard

- $1176.00 in GST” from Denis Hickmott at Premier Panelbeaters

(b)“LF guard, LF guard vent, LF guard – inner guard, LF door, LF door trim, LF door mirror, LF door handle outer, LF door window
moulding, LR door, LR door trim, LR door handle outer, LR door

1 New Zealand Police v Chapman [2017] NZDC 17559.

window moulding” Total = $1615.81 including GST from Mikes

Panel Shop Ltd (visual assessment only).

Submissions

[7] Mr…

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 Chapman v Police

Details

AGLC: Chapman v Police [2017] NZHC 2307
Case: [2017] NZHC 2307
Decision Date: 25 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal from Mr. Grant Chapman against his sentence for wilful damage. Chapman was ordered to pay reparations to Mr. Morriss for damage caused to Morriss's car. Chapman appealed on the basis that the quotes for the repairs were inflated and did not represent the true cost of the repair work. Chapman obtained two alternate quotes for the repairs. The appeal was out of time, and Chapman was self-represented.

The court needed to decide whether Chapman's appeal should be allowed despite it being out of time, and if the District Court's sentencing discretion was exercised properly. The court considered whether Chapman's submissions were fresh evidence and whether the quotes obtained were accurate representations of the reparation cost.

The court held that Chapman's appeal should be allowed, and the decision of the District Court was set aside. The court directed that a reparation report be prepared and remitted the sentence back to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the report. The reparation report should make particular reference to Sergeant Wood's comment on 13 December 2016 and ensure the quote obtained covers only the cost of repairing the damage inflicted by Chapman. If there is any dispute as to the nature or extent of the damage caused by Chapman, the District Court will need to hear evidence and form a view on exactly what damage was caused.

Orders