Gallon v Civil Aviation Authority - [2018] NZHC 2416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2018-485-49

[2018] NZHC 2416

BETWEEN
ANTHONY LAURENCE GALLON

Appellant

AND

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY

Respondent

Hearing: 4 September 2018

Appearances:

A L Gallon self-represented Appellant M Jenkins for the Respondent

Judgment:

13 September 2018

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

Table of Contents

Background [2]

District Court decision [8]

Disorderly behaviour under the Summary of Offences Act 1981 [12]

The Part 5A offences [29]

Fact of this case [41]

Language used by Mr Gallon  [47]
Mr Gallon’s demeanour  [52]
Implicit instruction not to talk further to the parents  [53]
Disobeying the final warning  [55]
Holistic assessment  [63]
Substituted charges  [66]

Conclusion [69]

[1] The appellant appeals against the decision of the District Court convicting him of an offence against s 65G of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 (the Act). The reasons for

GALLON v CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY [2018] NZHC 2416 [13 September 2018]

the conviction are set out in a decision of Judge S M Harrop of 20 March 2018.1 On 25 May 2018 the Judge refused an application for discharge without conviction and sentenced Mr Gallon to a fine of $750.

Background

[2] Although the facts and circumstances were the subject of more detailed comments and findings later in the judgment, a summary was set out by the District Court in the beginning of its judgment in the following terms:

[1] Mr Gallon was a passenger on an Air New Zealand flight from Melbourne to Wellington on the evening of 30 December 2016. He became concerned at the way in which parents seated across the aisle from him were treating their distressed baby. He considered their actions amounted to a form of child abuse or child torture. After the father was challenged by Mr Gallon about what he was doing, the father called over the inflight service manager, Ms Takiwa. She did not consider there was anything wrong with the parents’ actions and asked Mr Gallon to return to his seat, which he did. He continued however talking to the family from his seat which led to Ms Takiwa to inform the captain of a developing situation. As a result Mr Gallon was, with his agreement, moved four rows forward. He asserted that Ms Takiwa, by not doing anything about the situation was condoning the parents’ unacceptable behaviour. He wrote down her details and (although this is disputed by Mr Gallon) took his cell phone out and recorded a video or took photographs of her. He frantically wrote a note to the captain expressing his concern about the parents’ behaviour and at Ms Takiwa’s refusal to allow him to ensure that the child was not further ill-treated. He told the captain that if he would not “assign supervision to the child”, then he would be choosing to tolerate child abuse.

[2] After being given a final warning in respect of his behaviour and threatened with being handcuffed and met by the Police when the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gallon v Civil Aviation Authority and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NZHC 2416
Decision Date: 13 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Gallon v Civil Aviation Authority, the High Court of New Zealand reviewed an appeal against a conviction for disorderly conduct under the Civil Aviation Act 1990. Anthony Gallon, the appellant, was convicted of an offence under s 65G of the Act for disorderly conduct towards a crew member. The conviction was made by the District Court after Mr Gallon intervened in what he perceived as the mistreatment of a baby on an Air New Zealand flight. The High Court found that the District Court had misapplied the legal principles governing disorderly conduct, leading to a wrongful conviction. The Court quashed the conviction, finding that the appellant did not commit any of the relevant offences under Part 5A of the Act. The Court held that the District Court erred in its formulation of the test for disorderly conduct and did not correctly apply the relevant provisions of the Act. The High Court also found that the facts as presented did not support a conviction for any offence under Part 5A, and therefore did not order a retrial.

Orders