Doak v The Queen - [2020] NZHC 1521

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-404-000133

[2020] NZHC 1521

BETWEEN
SEAN MATHEW DOAK

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 15 June 2020

Appearances:

Todd Simmonds for the Appellant

Fiona Culliney and Kirsten Eskildsen for the Respondent

Judgment:

1 July 2020

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

[Appeal against conviction]

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 July 2020 at 2:30 pm Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Date:

DOAK v R [2020] NZHC 1521 [1 July 2020]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Sean Matthew Doak, is a Police officer who a jury found guilty of presenting a taser.

[2] At his sentencing on 20 September 2019 he applied for a discharge without conviction. Judge N J Sainsbury dismissed the application, convicting and discharging him.1

[3] Constable Doak now appeals that decision. He says that the direct and indirect consequences of the conviction, particularly the likelihood he will lose his job, are out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.

The facts and the verdict

[4] At sentencing the Judge summarised the facts. He was the trial Judge. No issue is taken with his analysis. The following account is drawn from his sentencing remarks supplemented by evidence given at trial.

[5] In the early hours of 17 September 2017 Constable Doak was working the late shift as a uniformed Police officer in Auckland. He was partnered in a marked patrol car with another young constable, A, who, at that time, had been in the job for just a few weeks. Constable Doak was driving. Shortly before midnight, when they were in the Mt Eden area, they received advice that a pursuit was in progress. They were tasked with getting in front of the vehicle and laying road spikes. They were successful. Road spikes were deployed on a street in Herne Bay. The officers watched the pursued car pass over them. They saw the driver was a male and in the passenger seat was a woman. Despite the damage to its tyres, the car continued at high speed towards the central business district. Throughout the pursuit the officers received ongoing reports from the Police helicopter. It was believed that the car had been driven into the Sky City carpark.

[6] Constable Doak and A were closest. Constable Doak stopped the patrol car at the top of the carpark’s entry ramp before he and A ran into the carpark. They found

1 New Zealand Police v Doak [2019] NZDC 23856.

the car. The male driver had fled but the female, who will be referred to as X, was huddled in the driver’s seat.2 They opened the door, demanding loudly where the driver was and who the car belonged to. X claimed she did not know. It was at that point X sprayed Constable A in the face with what the Judge concluded was probably CRC. This disorientated her and stung her eyes. Constable Doak went to look for the driver. At about…

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 Doak v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Doak v The Queen [2020] NZHC 1521
Case: [2020] NZHC 1521
Decision Date: 1 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Doak v The Queen involves Sean Matthew Doak, a Police officer convicted of presenting a taser, appealing against his conviction. The appeal focuses on whether the consequences of the conviction, particularly the potential loss of his job, are disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, considered the appeal and delivered a judgment on 1 July 2020. The legal issues centered around the three-step test under sections 106 and 107 of the Sentencing Act 2002: assessing the gravity of the offence, evaluating the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction, and determining if these consequences are out of proportion to the gravity of the offence.

Moore J, in the High Court, reviewed the District Court's decision, which had dismissed Constable Doak's application for a discharge without conviction. The Court assessed the gravity of the offence, considering Constable Doak's actions as moderately serious, particularly because he abused his position and the public's trust. The Court found that while the offence was relatively minor, the fact that it was committed by a Police officer and involved a vulnerable person heightened its seriousness. The Court also considered the direct and indirect consequences of the conviction, particularly the risk of losing his job. The evidence suggested that a conviction would likely lead to dismissal. The Court concluded that the consequences of conviction were out of proportion to the gravity of the offence, aligning with the principle that Police officers should not be treated more harshly than others but also not more leniently.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were quashed, and Constable Doak was discharged without conviction. The Court emphasized that the decision should not be interpreted as interfering with the Police's authority to determine Constable Doak's employment status.

Orders