Flatman-Williams v Police - [2025] NZHC 2100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2024-425-53

[2025] NZHC 2100

BETWEEN
TAINE JOSEPH FLATMAN-WILLIAMS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 28 July 2025

Appearances:

J A T Ross for Appellant

M B Brownlie for Respondent

Judgment:

30 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 July 2025 at 9.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

FLATMAN-WILLIAMS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2100 [30 July 2025]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Taine Flatman-Williams, pleaded guilty to a charge of common assault.1 Judge Duggan refused to grant him a discharge without conviction. Instead, she convicted him and ordered him to pay a $500 emotional harm reparation.2 Mr Flatman-Williams now appeals that decision.

Facts

[2] On 25 March 2024, around 1.30 am, the appellant was at a bar in Queenstown. There were concerns about the behaviour of the appellant and a second man (who was removed from the bar without issue). When the appellant was asked to leave, he refused. He was holding two glasses. The staff took the glasses off him, got him out of the bar and when he was released, he punched the doorman in the jaw.

[3] About 10 minutes later, the appellant climbed onto a wheelie bin and jumped into the bar’s courtyard. When he was found, he was again physically removed from the premises by the doorman. When outside, the doorman pushed the appellant to create space between them given he had earlier been punched. When pushed, the appellant fell to the ground then leapt up and delivered three or four further punches to the victim’s face.

District Court decision

[4] The Judge acknowledged the appellant sought a discharge without conviction. As she identified, that required her to consider both the seriousness of the offending and the potential consequences of a conviction.

[5] The Judge considered the seriousness of the offence was moderate. In reaching this conclusion, she noted that the first punch connected with the victim’s head and there were further punches. She also noted the victim impact statement which recorded the victim’s anxiety in going back to work for fear of another assault. She also took account of the appellant’s guilty plea, the fact it was his first conviction, and

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 196; maximum penalty one year’ imprisonment.
2 Police v Flatman-Williams [2024] NZDC 25514.

that he had done “quite a bit” of voluntary work and personal work since the offending, having completed 101 hours of voluntary work and completed the Positive Life Skills programme.

[6] Turning to the consequences of conviction, the Judge recorded that the appellant was concerned about the potential impact on his P endorsement on his driver’s licence, his employment, and on the ability to travel in the future.

[7] The Judge was not satisfied the potential consequences were out of all proportion to the seriousness of the offending. She was not prepared…

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 Flatman-Williams v Police

Details

AGLC: Flatman-Williams v Police [2025] NZHC 2100
Case: [2025] NZHC 2100
Decision Date: 30 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Taine Joseph Flatman-Williams appealed against his conviction for common assault and the subsequent imposition of an emotional harm reparation by Judge Duggan of the District Court. The appeal was heard on 28 July 2025, with J A T Ross appearing for the appellant and M B Brownlie for the respondent.

The central issue in the appeal was whether Judge Duggan erred in not granting Flatman-Williams a discharge without conviction. The appeal hinged on whether the consequences of a conviction were out of all proportion to the seriousness of the offending. This involved a two-step analysis: first, determining the gravity of the offending, and second, assessing the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction.

Judge Dunningham examined the gravity of the offending, considering the appellant's multiple punches to the victim, the victim's injuries, and the appellant's personal mitigating factors such as his guilty plea, prior good character, voluntary work, and remorse. The Judge concluded that while these factors did reduce the gravity of the offending to low-to-moderate, they did not sufficiently mitigate the seriousness of the offence.

Next, the Judge assessed the consequences of a conviction, focusing on the appellant's concerns about the stigma of a conviction, potential impacts on his employment, and future overseas travel. The Judge found that these consequences were either speculative or were consequences of the offending itself rather than the conviction. Therefore, the Judge concluded that the consequences were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending, and dismissed the appeal.

The High Court upheld the District Court's decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming the conviction and the emotional harm reparation.

Orders