D v Police HC Christchurch Cri-2006-409-203

[2007] NZHC 117

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2006-409-000203

UNDER  the Summary Proceedings Act 1957

BETWEEN  D

Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         7 March 2007

Counsel:         C R Gates for Appellant

M N Zarifeh for Respondent

Judgment:      7 March 2007

JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J (RE LEAVE TO APPEAL)

[1]      In a decision dated 19 December 2006 I held that it was competent for a Judge to award reparation, by way of “top-up”, to cover the 20 per cent shortfall in earnings-related compensation payable under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.  Such award of reparation was ordered in the District Court following the appellant’s conviction upon a charge of careless use causing injury to the complainant.

[2]      As should be evident from the decision the outcome required reconciliation of s32(5) of the Sentencing Act 2002 on the one hand, and s317 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act on the other.  Tenable arguments were advanced directed to which of these sections should prevail.   In the result I favoured an interpretation based on the Sentencing Act provisions, that is an interpretation in favour of the availability of reparation being payable to compensate

for the shortfall.

D V NZ POLICE HC CHCH CRI-2006-409-000203  7 March 2007

[3]      Special leave to appeal is now sought.  I am well satisfied that leave should be granted.   The point at issue is a question of law.   It is of general and public importance and is capable of serious argument both ways.

[4]      Accordingly, leave for a further appeal is granted in relation to the following question:

Pursuant to the Sentencing Act 2002 may reparation be awarded to a victim to compensate for the earnings entitlement shortfall (20%) not covered under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001, or does the latter Act prohibit such an award?

Solicitors:

DLA Phillips Fox, Auckland for Appellant
Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch for Respondent