Goggin v Police - [2013] NZHC 2710

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-485-000069 [2013] NZHC 2710

BETWEEN MATTHEW JAMES GOGGIN Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 15 October 2013

Counsel: A M P Ross for appellant
A J Ewing for respondent

Judgment: 18 October 2013

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

[1] On 9 August 2013, Judge A P Walsh in the District Court at Wellington declined an application on behalf of Mr Goggin for discharge without conviction in relation to a charge of assault under s 196 of the Crimes Act 1961, to which Mr Goggin had pleaded guilty.1 Instead, Judge Walsh entered a conviction and then discharged Mr Goggin, subject to an order that he pay reparation to the victim in the sum of $1,000.2

[2] Mr Goggin has appealed from the Judge’s refusal to grant him a discharge

without conviction.

[3] The assault occurred in Mr Goggin’s flat in suburban Wellington on 14 April

2013. An argument developed between Mr Goggin and a friend as to who should go out to purchase alcohol for the evening. Without warning, Mr Goggin landed a single punch to the face of the victim with great force. The force caused the victim
to temporarily black out. Once he regained consciousness, the victim left the

1 New Zealand Police v Goggin DC Wellington CRI-2013-085-4238, 9 August 2013.
2 That was directed to be paid at the rate of $20 per week.

GOGGIN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 2710 [18 October 2013]

premises and called an ambulance. The Police became involved in the matter because they were contacted by the ambulance staff. The victim sustained a severely broken nose, which will require reconstructive surgery to be straightened.

[4] Mr Goggin has no previous convictions and his violent response was apparently out of character.

[5] Between October 2010 and October 2012, Mr Goggin had been subject to compulsory treatment under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 (the Act). At the end of that period, he was discharged from supervision under the Act. It is acknowledged that, in light of subsequent events, that was a poor clinical decision.

[6] Mr Goggin was re-admitted to hospital on an involuntary basis the day after the assault, and his monitoring since then has led a psychiatrist to conclude that his offending behaviour was likely to have reflected a relapse of paranoid schizophrenia. Mr Goggin acknowledged that he had stopped taking his medication at the time, and that seems likely to have contributed to his mental deterioration.

[7] The Judge took into account Mr Goggin’s diminished responsibility on account of his mental health difficulties, which rendered the circumstances of the offending materially less serious than they would otherwise have been. The Judge was wary of granting a discharge without conviction when circumstances of offending of this type were likely to be relevant to enable potential employers to make fully informed decisions as to Mr Goggin’s capabilities as a prospective employee.

[8] The Judge recognised the prospect that the existence…

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 Goggin v Police

Details

AGLC: Goggin v Police [2013] NZHC 2710
Case: [2013] NZHC 2710
Decision Date: 18 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Goggin v Police, the appellant, Matthew James Goggin, sought discharge without conviction following a guilty plea to a charge of assault under the Crimes Act 1961. The incident in question involved a single punch to the face of the victim during an argument in Goggin's flat, which resulted in the victim sustaining a severely broken nose requiring reconstructive surgery. The District Court Judge had declined Goggin's application for discharge without conviction, opting instead to enter a conviction and order Goggin to pay reparation to the victim. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether the District Court Judge's refusal to grant Goggin a discharge without conviction was justified.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the District Court Judge had correctly exercised his discretion under Section 107 of the Sentencing Act 2002 in declining to grant Goggin a discharge without conviction. This required the court to assess whether Goggin's diminished responsibility due to his mental health condition and the potential disproportionately adverse consequences of a conviction outweighed the gravity of the offence.

The High Court found that Goggin's severely compromised mental state at the time of the offence, compounded by his decision to stop taking prescribed medication, significantly diminished his responsibility for the assault. The court emphasised that while the victim sustained serious harm, it was inflicted under circumstances where Goggin's mental condition played a crucial role. The court also considered the potential adverse consequences for Goggin, including difficulties in employment and education, which it found to be disproportionately severe given the nature of the offence. Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the criteria for a discharge under Section 107 of the Sentencing Act were met and exercised its discretion in Goggin's favour.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and discharged Goggin without conviction. Goggin was ordered to continue paying the reparation of $1,000 to the victim at the rate of $20 per week, and the costs order of $132.89 remained in place.

Orders