H v Police HC Auckland Cri-2007-488-3

[2007] NZHC 43

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2007-488-0003

BETWEEN    H

Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         14 February 2007

Appearances: Steve Nicholson for Appellant

Peter Magee for Respondent

Judgment:      14 February 2007

JUDGMENT OF HARRISON J

SOLICITORS

Steve Nicholson (Okaihau) for Appellant

Marsden Wood Inskip & Smith (Whangarei) for Respondent

H V POLICE HC WHA CRI-2007-488-0003  14 February 2007

[1]      Following   a   defended   hearing   in   the   District   Court   at   Kaikohe   on

12 December 2006, Judge Duncan Harvey found Mr l H   guilty of three charges of breach of bail, one of obstruction, one of resisting arrest, and one of failing to comply with instructions to supply his fingerprints.

[2]      At   trial   Mr H     was   represented   by   Mr Steve   Nicholson.      On Mr H  ’s instructions, Mr Nicholson filed an appeal against conviction.  He did not appeal the monetary fines imposed by way of sentence.

[3]      The Court notified Mr H   of the fixture to hear this appeal at 10 am today.   On 12 February, by way of courtesy to the Court, Mr Nicholson wrote to advise that he would attend and seek leave to withdraw because he was without instructions.   He advised also that Mr H   had instructed him to apply for an adjournment.  However, at my request, the registry advised Mr Nicholson that the appeal must proceed.

[4] Mr Nicholson has appeared today. He confirms that he has instructions but that he is unable to advance any genuine arguments in support of Mr H ’s appeal. He has outlined Mr H ’s grievances. However, I am satisfied that Judge Harvey’s decision does not give rise to any appealable grounds. His judgment is a careful analysis of the evidence and the relevant legal principles. In my view his conclusion is unimpeachable. In particular, I endorse his finding that the appellant’s refusal to answer the warrants was due to a mistake of law as opposed to one of fact: at [17]. Consequently, even though Mr H had a genuine belief that he was acting lawfully, he was not and a conviction had to be imposed.

[5]      For these brief reasons the appeal is dismissed.

Rhys Harrison J