Hapi v Police - [2023] NZCA 424

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA228/2023
[2023] NZCA 424

BETWEEN	JORDAN NGA-POTIKI RICHMOND HAPI Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	Wylie, Ellis and van Bohemen JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person B J Thompson and Z Zhang for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	6 September 2023 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to bring a second appeal against the rehearing decision of the District Court — [2022] NZDC 24926 — is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Wylie J)

Introduction

The applicant, Jordan Hapi, seeks leave to bring a second appeal against a conviction entered against him for intentionally damaging the window of a police car, contrary to s 11(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981.
On 10 June 2021 Mr Hapi was found guilty of the charge by Judge Cameron in the District Court at Tauranga, notwithstanding that Mr Hapi had failed to appear at the hearing.[1] Mr Hapi was ordered to pay reparation of $350.75, being the costs of repairs to the police vehicle.
[1]Police v Hapi [2021] NZDC 11573 [the first hearing decision].
Mr Hapi was granted a rehearing. On this occasion he defended the charge. He was again found guilty by Judge Cameron. Mr Hapi was convicted, fined $300 and ordered to pay reparation of $350.75.[2]
[2]Police v Hapi [2022] NZDC 24926 [the rehearing decision].
Mr Hapi then filed an appeal with the High Court. The appeal was heard by Brewer J. It was dismissed.[3]
[3]Hapi v Police [2023] NZHC 742.
Mr Hapi now seeks leave to bring a second appeal against the rehearing decision pursuant to s 237(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The application for leave to bring a second appeal is opposed by the Crown.

Factual background

Judge Cameron recounted the factual background to Mr Hapi’s offending in his sentencing notes following the rehearing decision. We gratefully adopt his summary:
[2] The allegation is that on 5 August 2020 while under arrest and sitting in the rear of a police patrol car the defendant deliberately smashed the left rear window of that vehicle. Constables Andrew and Prout gave evidence. Their common evidence was that they were on duty in a patrol car on the night of 5 August 2020. They were called to investigate a separate incident in Maketu in the Tauranga region and at about 9 pm that night they observed a black Honda SUV travelling towards them, but then doing a u-turn, which action they regarded as suspicious. The vehicle was stopped by police, with the patrol car parking behind the SUV and lighting the scene with its headlights. They went to the driver’s door, which had the window open but only to the extent of some five to 10 centimetres. The driver was the defendant, Jordan Hapi. He was asked to provide his driver’s details, including his licence, but refused. He was warned that it was an offence if…

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 Hapi v Police

Details

AGLC: Hapi v Police [2023] NZCA 424
Case: [2023] NZCA 424
Decision Date: 6 September 2023 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Jordan Hapi appeals against the decision of the New Zealand District Court, which convicted him for intentionally damaging the window of a police vehicle. The Court of Appeal, comprising Wylie, Ellis, and van Bohemen JJ, dismissed Hapi's application for leave to bring a second appeal against the rehearing decision. The case involves a dispute between Hapi, the applicant, and the New Zealand Police, the respondent. The legal issues that the Court needed to address were whether Hapi's proposed appeal raised any arguable grounds, if it involved a matter of general or public importance, and whether there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice if the appeal was not heard.

The Court of Appeal found that Hapi's proposed appeal did not involve a matter of general or public importance, and there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice. The Court determined that Hapi's arguments about the role of his McKenzie friend, the trauma experienced by his brother, and the alleged fabrication of statements by the police were not relevant to the proposed appeal. Moreover, the Court held that there was no merit in Hapi's argument that his McKenzie friend was denied the opportunity to actively advocate for him at the hearing. The Court also dismissed Hapi's challenges to the sovereignty of Parliament and the jurisdiction of the courts in New Zealand. The Court concluded that Hapi's conviction and sentence were based on well-settled legal principles and undisputed facts.

In light of the above findings, the Court declined Hapi's application for leave to bring a second appeal against the District Court's rehearing decision. The Court found no evidential foundation for Hapi's defence that he had acted in defence of his brother, and it was not, as a matter of law, available to him as a defence to the charge. Furthermore, the Court held that the fine imposed and the reparation ordered were not manifestly excessive. The Court's decision is based on the principle that the threshold for granting leave to bring a second appeal is high, and the proposed appeal did not meet the required criteria.

Orders