Clarke v Watts - [2014] NZHC 822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2013-485-5771 [2014] NZHC 822

IN THE MATTER OF the Harassment Act 1997

BETWEEN

NEIL MARTIN CLARKE Appellant

AND

COREY DANIEL WATTS Respondent

Hearing: 24 March 2014

Appearances:

C J Tennet for the appellant
M Anderson for the respondent

Judgment:

17 April 2014

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

Introduction

[1] On 19 August 2013, in the District Court at Hutt Valley, Judge Tuohy made a restraining order under the Harassment Act 1997 against the appellant, Neil Clarke, in favour of the respondent, Corey Watts.1 This is an appeal by Mr Clarke against that decision.

Facts

[2] The order made by Judge Tuohy on 19 August 2013 is the third such order made by the District Court under the Harassment Act against Mr Clarke and in favour of Mr Watts. The background to the first and second of those orders was set
out by Judge Broadmore when he made his decision making the second order:2

1 Watts v Clarke DC Hutt Valley CIV-2013-096-0065, 19 August 2013.
2 Watts v Clarke DC Wellington CIV-2007-085-001326, 29 February 2008 at [1]-[4].

CLARKE v WATTS [2014] NZHC 822 [16 April 2014]

On 17 October 2006 the applicant, Corey Daniel Watts, obtained a restraining order against the respondent, Neil Martin Clarke, restraining him from harassing Mr Watts. The order was made on the standard conditions set out in the Harassment Act.

The background of the application which resulted in the order was the evidence of a large number of abusive and arguably threatening phone calls made by Mr Clarke to Mr Watts covering a period of some two years at least. Those calls in turn originated from dealings between Mr Watts who was a police officer, and Mr Clarke.

The order made in October 2006 was for a term of 12 months. Shortly after it expired, Mr Watts received what, on his account, were two phone calls from Mr Clarke. According to Mr Watts these calls were in the form of voicemail messages left on his work telephone. On Mr Watts’ evidence they were made on the same day, one at 7.45 am and the other at 9.52 am. Those calls, if there were indeed two of them, were abusive and threatening. They picked up the tenor of earlier calls before the making of the order in October
2006. Indeed it appeared to Mr Watts that that was the intention of Mr Clarke in making the calls: in the first one, as Mr Watts said in oral evidence this morning, Mr Clarke said “this is your old friend Clarkey. It’s not all over, I’m going to get your warrant”. These words, if I accept Mr Watts’s evidence, clearly harked back to what had happened before the making of the earlier order.

Mr Watts’ reaction to these calls was that he became upset. The absence of any contact from Mr Clarke over the previous 12 months had been a welcome reprieve. These calls made him think that the…

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 Clarke v Watts

Details

AGLC: Clarke v Watts [2014] NZHC 822
Case: [2014] NZHC 822
Decision Date: 17 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court was asked to review a decision of the District Court that granted a third restraining order against Neil Clarke, in favour of Corey Watts, under the Harassment Act 1997. Clarke appealed the decision on the basis that Watts had not been harassed by him, that the Judge erred in finding that two previous specified acts had occurred, and that a restraining order was not necessary given the length of time since the earlier specified acts. Watts defended the decision of the District Court.

The court was required to determine whether the District Court was correct in granting a restraining order against Clarke, considering the nature of the harassment alleged, the distress caused to Watts, and the necessity of the order to protect Watts from further harassment. The court also had to consider whether the restraining order curtailed Clarke's right to freedom of expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The High Court found that Clarke's ongoing grudge against Watts and his pattern of behaviour, including his intemperate comments in response to phone calls from Watts and others, justified the making of a restraining order. The court determined that Watts was indeed distressed by Clarke's actions and that the degree of distress was sufficient to warrant making an order. The court further found that an order was necessary to protect Watts from further harassment, given Clarke's demonstrated intention to continue his pattern of behaviour. The court dismissed Clarke's appeal against the District Court's decision.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal by Neil Clarke against the decision of the District Court was dismissed, and no question of costs arose.

Orders