F v Police HC Auckland CRI 2008-404-367

[2009] NZHC 1650

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2008-404-367

CRI 2008-404-368

F

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         21 April 2009

Appearances: No appearance for appellant

Mr Flanagan for respondent

Judgment:      21 April 2009

JUDGMENT OF WINKELMANN J

Crown Solicitor, Auckland

C M F  , 166 Turvey Road, Mangonui, Far North District 0420

F V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC AK CRI 2008-404-367  21 April 2009

[1]      This is an appeal against conviction.  On 11 November 2008 Mr F   was convicted  following  a  defended  hearing  on  one  charge  of  obstructing  a  Court Security Officer acting in the execution of his duty.  That is an offence under s 30(1) of the Courts Security Act 1999, and is punishable by a fine or a period of imprisonment not exceeding 3 months.  Mr F   was convicted and discharged.

[2]      He has now filed a notice of appeal.  The handwritten grounds of appeal are difficult to read, but appear to me to be as follows:

1.        Did not commit the offence.

2.        Refused jury trial.

3.        Denied my rights, [unintelligible word] of rights.

[3]      Mr F   was self-represented at first instance and, it seems, on this appeal. There is no appearance by him today.  I record that I had his name called throughout the public areas of the building.

[4]      The Court had sent notice of the hearing date to the address provided on the notice of appeal, but I see from the file that there is a returned envelope “gone no address”, received at the High Court on 16 January 2009.  However, the Registrar in charge of this file tells me that he had a telephone conversation with Mr F   in which Mr F   was advised of the hearing date.  Mr F   said that he would attend at Court to collect the notice of hearing and a copy of the notes of evidence from the defended hearing before the District Court Judge.   He has not collected either of these documents.

[5]      I am satisfied that the requirements of the notice have been complied with. The notice of hearing was sent to the address stipulated in the notice of appeal. Furthermore, Mr F   was advised of the hearing date.   Notwithstanding this, he does not appear today, indicating it seems to me, an intention to pursue his appeal. In any case, I am satisfied that that the grounds of appeal stipulated in the notice of

appeal do not have any prospect of success.  As to the first ground, that he did not commit the offence, the District Court Judge had the opportunity to hear extensive evidence, recorded in some 163 pages of transcript.  In a carefully reasoned decision the Judge sets out the reasons as to why he is satisfied that the police had proved all the necessary elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

[6]      In relation to the second ground, that Mr F   was refused a jury trial, under the provisions of the Summary Proceedings Act he had no entitlement to elect trial by jury since the maximum period of imprisonment that could be imposed in respect of this offence was 3 months.

[7]      Finally, the third ground of appeal, that Mr F   was denied his rights.  Since Mr F   does not stipulate which rights he was denied it is difficult to be sure what was intended with this ground of appeal.   I note however from the file that the District Court Judge adjourned the hearing on 20 March 2008 because of concerns that Mr F   had not had adequate disclosure and that he needed more time to prepare for the hearing in the light of that non-disclosure, and some other related matters.  It seems then that Mr F   had ample opportunity to prepare.  And from the notes of evidence of the 11 November 2008 hearing, it is also apparent that he had ample opportunity to put and did put, his defence before the Court.  This ground of appeal has no prospect of success.

[8]      In the light of these observations and in the light of the non-prosecution of the appeal by Mr F  , I strike the appeal out.

Winkelmann J