Charpan v Police - [2023] NZHC 3510

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2023-442-06

[2023] NZHC 3510

BETWEEN
GRIGORI CHARPAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 17 October 2023

Appearances:

R W Ord for the Appellant

J M Webber for the Respondent

Judgment:

5 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Solicitors
R W Ord, Barrister, Nelson O’Donoghue Webber, Nelson

CHARPAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 3510 [5 December 2023]

What happened?

The puppy

[1] On 11 October 2021, Mr Grigori Charpan, aged 54, took his son to a violin lesson in central Nelson. A new puppy at a neighbouring house began to bark and ran to the edge of the driveway before its owner, the complainant, called it back. Mr Charpan got angry. The complainant apologised. Five minutes later the complainant and her puppy went to get something out of a car. She saw Mr Charpan again and asked whether his son would like to meet the puppy. Mr Charpan got angry again. He threatened to kill the puppy, saying something to the effect that he had a “knife to kill dogs” and flicked open a knife he pulled from his pocket. The complainant ran back into the house, took a photo of Mr Charpan’s car, hid under her table, and called the Police later that night. She has required mental health care after the incident and moved her dog away for fear for its safety. Mr Charpan was charged with intimidation and possession of an offensive weapon.1

The knife

[2] On 14 October 2021, in the course of executing a search warrant, two police officers talked to Mr Charpan in an Intermediate School carpark in Richmond. They noticed he had a metal clip likely to hold a knife. Mr Charpan got angry and aggressive, insulting them and then threw a closed pocketknife towards the feet of one of the officers. Mr Charpan was charged within possession of a knife without a reasonable excuse.2

The trial

[3] On 16 February 2023, Mr Charpan represented himself in a judge-alone trial in the District Court at Nelson. Mr Charpan’s case was that:

(a)The puppy was jumping up trying to attack his son and Mr Charpan was calm and polite. The knife belonged to his son, and he said he

Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a): maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a

$2,000 fine; and Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(a): maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.

2 Summary Offences Act, s 13A. Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine. The Court may also order the knife be forfeited.

would have to use it if the dog attacked his son. The complainant was mentally ill, on medication, and her husband had left her.

(b)The Police ambushed him on 14 October 2021. He was not abusive, though he admitted calling them “bastards” and “assholes”. The male police officer had tattoos and the female officer was wearing trousers, so less weight should be placed on…

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 Charpan v Police

Details

AGLC: Charpan v Police [2023] NZHC 3510
Case: [2023] NZHC 3510
Decision Date: 5 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Grigori Charpan appeals his conviction and sentence for intimidation, possession of an offensive weapon, and possession of a knife without reasonable excuse. The case revolves around two separate incidents where Mr Charpan exhibited threatening behaviour and carried knives in public. The initial trial, held in the Nelson District Court, found Mr Charpan guilty on all charges, leading to a sentence of 175 hours of community work for each charge, concurrently, and a $400 reparation payment to the complainant. Mr Charpan's appeal hinges on three grounds: he claims he had defences to the charges of possession of an offensive weapon and possession of a knife without reasonable excuse, and that he was not given the opportunity to apply for a discharge without conviction.

The High Court assessed the appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which mandates that an appeal against conviction can be allowed if there was a miscarriage of justice due to an error in the assessment of evidence or for any other reason. The Court also considered the relevance and admissibility of additional evidence presented by Mr Charpan on appeal.

Regarding the defence of possessing an offensive weapon, the Court found Mr Charpan's argument unconvincing. The judge correctly dismissed the defence that Mr Charpan's knife was intended for the conditional act of killing a dog that had not attacked anyone. The Court upheld the trial judge's decision to rely on the complainant's evidence over Mr Charpan's account. Similarly, the Court rejected Mr Charpan's claim that the knife he carried during his interaction with police was a gardening tool, finding no credible evidence to support this defence.

Finally, the Court addressed the issue of whether Mr Charpan was denied the opportunity to apply for a discharge without conviction. The Court concluded that the consequences of conviction for Mr Charpan's offences were not disproportionate to the gravity of the offending. Mr Charpan's concerns about potential future repercussions did not outweigh the need for a conviction to reflect the seriousness of his actions.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed Mr Charpan's appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice and affirming the original convictions and sentences.

Orders