Firmin v Police - [2025] NZHC 3097

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2025-483-35

[2025] NZHC 3097

BETWEEN
PETER JOHN FIRMIN

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 15 October 2025

Appearances:

Appellant in person

K D Turner for Respondent

Judgment:

16 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Appeal against conviction]

[1] Following a summary hearing before Judge Dawson on 12 August 2011, Mr John Firmin was convicted of trespass under s 4(4) and 11(2)(a) of the Trespass Act 1980.1 He was sentenced to a fine of $650.2

[2]Mr Firmin now seeks leave to appeal his conviction 14 years out of time.

The offending

[3] The appellant was charged that on 17 December 2010 having been warned by an occupier to stay off Papahaua Station, he wilfully trespassed on that place within two years of receiving the warning.3 Mr Firmin’s defence was that he was not on the property on the relevant date.

1      Maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment, $1,000 fine.
2      He was also ordered to pay $100 in witness expenses, and $132.89 in Court costs.
3      Police v Firmin CRI-2011-067-000003, 12 August 2011 at [1].

FIRMIN v POLICE [2025] NZHC 3097 [16 October 2025]

[4] At trial, Mr Firmin represented himself. Evidence was heard from both witnesses for the prosecution and the defence, including the defendant himself.

[5] The evidence established that the land in question was owned by the Ātihau-Whanganui Incorporation, a Māori corporation farming the Station for the benefit of its shareholders. Mr Firmin accepted that he had been served with a trespass notice on 8 October 2010, and that had he entered the property he would have been guilty of trespass.4 The evidence also established that the notice had been issued because Mr Firmin had previously breached hunting privileges on the property. There was also a history of ill-feeling between Mr Firmin and employees of the Station.

[6] The Police relied on the identification evidence of a Mr Hawira. He said he saw Mr Firmin on the property and talked to him at 9.30am on 17 December 2010. The witness described Mr Firmin’s appearance and that of his dog. He also confirmed he had seen Mr Firmin in the area before, and knew where he lived. During cross-examination the following exchange occurred between Mr Firmin and the witness:

Q. …Now, in this brief of evidence that I got from the police, you said that, it states here that: “I knew it was Peter Firmin who I had spoken to because my mother used to go out with his cousin and I met him many times while with her”?

A. I haven’t met you many times, I’ve seen you.

Q. You’ve seen me but you’ve never been formally introduced?

A. No.

Q. And you’re absolutely 100% positive that it was me that you saw on that day?

A. Yes, yes.

[7] The Judge considered Mr Hawira a truthful and credible witness, with no reason to lie.5 He did not accept Mr Firmin’s…

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 Firmin v Police

Details

AGLC: Firmin v Police [2025] NZHC 3097
Case: [2025] NZHC 3097
Decision Date: 16 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Firmin v Police involved Peter John Firmin, the applicant, appealing against his conviction for trespass under the Trespass Act 1980, fourteen years after the conviction. Firmin had been convicted by Judge Dawson following a summary hearing on 12 August 2011, for trespassing on Papahaua Station after receiving a warning from an occupier not to enter the property. Firmin was sentenced to a fine of $650, along with additional costs and expenses. The court had to determine whether Firmin's application for leave to appeal his conviction, filed out of time, should be granted.

The primary legal issues were whether the 14-year delay in filing the appeal could be justified and whether the proposed grounds for appeal had any merit. The court had to consider the reasons for the delay and the potential merits of the appeal, including Firmin's claims about the exclusion of medical evidence, the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court, the validity of the trespass notice, and alleged misconduct by the police. The court also considered Firmin's contention that the delay in bringing the charges amounted to a breach of his rights under the Bill of Rights Act, and his argument that the conviction violated tikanga Māori.

The court found that the delay could not be attributed solely to a lack of awareness of the appeal process or lack of legal representation. The proposed grounds of appeal were deemed to have no merit. The medical evidence excluded by the trial judge was not likely to have affected the outcome, as Firmin had previously walked to the property and used a vehicle to access it. The court also found no merit in Firmin's arguments about the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court, the validity of the trespass notice, or the alleged misconduct by the police. The court concluded that undue delay and tikanga Māori did not provide a valid defence to criminal trespass in this case. The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the fine had been paid and there was no evidence of error.

The application for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed, and the court encouraged Firmin to focus on more positive things rather than dwelling on past frustrations.

Orders