Grant v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 1244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2021-442-4

[2021] NZHC 1244

BETWEEN
SAMANTHA JANE GRANT

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 20 April 2021

Counsel:

Appellant in person

J W Cameron for Respondent

Judgment:

31 May 2021

INTERIM JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

[1] In February this year, Samantha Grant pleaded guilty to three charges of contravening a protection order1 and one charge of wilful damage.2 She was convicted and sentenced by Judge Zohrab to nine months’ supervision.

[2]A few weeks later, Ms Grant filed an appeal against her convictions.

Background

[3] I record at the outset that I have little doubt that Ms Grant’s convictions were the outcome of a chain of very unfortunate events, to which the break-up of her marriage is central. Ms Grant is a teacher by training. She has a single previous

1 Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(b) and 112(1)(a) [maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment].
2 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11 [maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine].

GRANT v R [2021] NZHC 1244 [31 May 2021]

conviction, for driving under the influence.3 And the timing of that conviction also strongly suggests a link with Ms Grant’s marriage break-up; it seems plain (and I think Ms Grant would accept) that she has—or has had—problems with alcohol. As well, the break-up has led to relationship property proceedings in the Family Court, the result of which is now (Ms Grant advised me) the subject of an appeal by Ms Grant to this Court.4

Narrative of relevant events

[4] To the extent the following chronology involves the events giving rise to the charges, it is taken from the summary of facts to which Ms Grant pleaded guilty.5 Parts of the narrative may be incomplete as, to some extent, I have had to piece it together myself.

[5] On 18 October 2019, a temporary protection order was issued, naming Ms Grant as the respondent. A final protection order was issued on 19 January 2020. The protected persons named in the orders are Ms Grant’s former husband and his new partner. They are also the complainants in relation to the relevant charges.

[6] On 3 March 2020, Ms Grant had been drinking. She went to her ex-husband’s address in Richmond (the former family home) and broke in through a rear door. She searched the house, going into the bedrooms and moving things around. She went into the living room and removed a relatively valuable picture of Richie McCaw from the wall. She smashed two holes in the picture and stabbed it with a pen numerous times. She then fell asleep on the sofa, until she was awoken, on her ex-husband’s return home.

[7] These events initially led Ms Grant to be charged with burglary and with breaching the protection order. At that time she was already facing two other charges of breaching the protection order as a result of things that had happened in January.

3…

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 Grant v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Grant v The Queen [2021] NZHC 1244
Case: [2021] NZHC 1244
Decision Date: 31 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Samantha Jane Grant appeals her convictions and sentences for breaching a protection order and wilfully damaging property. The appeal came before Ellis J, who found that there was a reasonable prospect that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The central issue was whether Ms Grant's guilty plea was made under duress, or if she misunderstood the available defences and options. The Judge found that although Ms Grant understood the consequences of her guilty plea, she had not been advised of the possibility of a discharge without conviction, which would have been a relevant consideration given her circumstances and the relatively minor nature of the offending. This oversight, the Judge found, potentially fell within the fourth category of Richmond v R, where there is a miscarriage of justice if the plea was induced by a failure to properly advise on available defences or outcomes. The Judge issued an interim judgment and invited the Crown to provide further submissions on the issue.

This case highlights the importance of ensuring that defendants, particularly those in vulnerable circumstances, are fully informed of all available legal options, including the possibility of a discharge without conviction, before entering a guilty plea. The court will consider whether the absence of such advice constitutes a miscarriage of justice and whether the appeal should proceed.

Orders