Legal Research
Cases
Dickin v Police

Dickin v Police

Case [2023] NZHC 760 5 April 2023

Appeal

Miscarriage of Justice

Mens Rea & Intention

Discharge without Conviction

Consequences of Conviction

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2023-419-7

[2023] NZHC 760

IN THE MATTER of an appeal against conviction and sentence

BETWEEN

WADE DICKIN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 30 March 2023

Appearances:

T Sutcliffe for the Appellant

P Noorland for the Respondent

Judgment:

5 April 2023

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 5 April 2023 at 2:00 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Hamilton Legal (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Hamilton Counsel: T Sutcliffe, Hamilton

DICKIN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 760 [5 April 2023]

[1] On 7 November 2022, Wade Dickin was convicted and discharged on a charge of intimidation by hindering the complainant’s use of his motor vehicle by grabbing his car keys and throwing them away.1 He was acquitted of a charge of assault with intent to injure. Mr Dickin’s oral application for discharge without conviction in respect of the intimidation charge was unsuccessful.

[2] Mr Dickin now appeals the conviction and the refusal of his application for discharge without conviction. This appeal was filed nearly two weeks out of time. Despite counsel advising Mr Dickin of the right of appeal after the hearing, there was no contact with him until he queried the option of appealing. This arose after Mr Dickin found he was being refused work opportunities. There appears to be no prejudice to the parties as a result of the late filing and the respondent does not oppose the application. I grant leave accordingly.

Factual background

[3] On 6 October 2021, Mr Dickin was driving behind the complainant and made a slight contact with the rear right corner of the complainant’s car. After the collision, both the complainant and Mr Dickin got out of their cars. The Police alleged that Mr Dickin swung his hands at the complainant, hitting him on the neck and jaw with an open hand three to four times. They also said Mr Dickin pushed the complainant to the ground twice, fracturing his thumb in the process.

[4] The Police then alleged that Mr Dickin continued to intimidate the complainant by standing over him and speaking to him in a threatening tone. Mr Dickin then took the complainant’s car keys and threw them into a field. He continued to threaten the complainant by saying “you taking my licence plate and going to call the cops? If anything happens, I will be back with 20 guys like me”.

1 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(c). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment or a
$2,000 fine.

Judgment under appeal

[5] In a judge-alone trial in the District Court,2 Judge S R Clark acquitted Mr Dickin of the assault charge after being presented with two diametrically opposed versions of events and with due regard to the presumption of innocence.

[6] In respect of the intimidation charge as laid, the Judge noted it required the Police to prove that Mr Dickin had threatened to injure another person…

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 Dickin v Police

Details

AGLC: Dickin v Police [2023] NZHC 760
Case: [2023] NZHC 760
Decision Date: 5 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the High Court of New Zealand concerns the conviction and refusal to grant a discharge without conviction of Wade Dickin, who was found guilty of intimidation by hindering the complainant's use of his motor vehicle. Mr Dickin's appeal against his conviction and the refusal of a discharge without conviction was filed late but was granted leave to proceed due to the absence of prejudice to the parties and the respondent's lack of opposition. The central legal issues were whether the District Court Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice, and whether the consequences of the conviction were disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.

The court first examined the conviction appeal, noting that the District Court Judge had amended the charge to one of hindering the complainant's use of his property by grabbing and throwing away the car keys. The court found that it was open to the District Court Judge to infer that Mr Dickin anticipated his actions would cause the complainant to feel frightened or intimidated. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice in the conviction, and the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Regarding the discharge without conviction appeal, the court found that the consequences of the conviction, particularly the significant impact on Mr Dickin's employability, were out of proportion to the relatively low gravity of the offence. The court determined that the District Court Judge had erred in his assessment of the consequences of the conviction, as he did not have the benefit of the recent affidavit detailing Mr Dickin's employment difficulties. Consequently, the appeal against the refusal to discharge without conviction was allowed, and Mr Dickin was discharged without conviction under s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

Orders