Hapi v Police - [2023] NZHC 742

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2022-463-162

[2023] NZHC 742

BETWEEN
JORDAN NGA POTIKI HAPI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 4 April 2023

Appearances:

Appellant in person

J L Manera for Respondent

Judgment:

4 April 2023

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 April 2023 at 3.30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Pollett Legal (Tauranga) for Respondent

HAPI v POLICE [2023] NZHC 742 [4 April 2023]

Introduction

[1]Mr Hapi appeals his conviction on a charge of wilful damage.

[2]There is some procedural complexity which I will describe.

[3] The charge of wilful damage arose from an incident which occurred on 5 August 2020 during which Mr Hapi kicked out a window in a police car.

[4]Mr Hapi has at all times represented himself.

[5] The case was first set down for a defended hearing on 2 June 2021. Mr Hapi failed to appear and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Mr Hapi made a voluntary appearance on 4 June 2021, at which time the arrest warrant was withdrawn and the trial rescheduled for 10 June 2021.

[6] Mr Hapi did not appear on 10 June 2021 and Judge IDR Cameron proceeded to hear the evidence in his absence. The Judge entered a conviction.1

[7] Subsequently, Mr Hapi applied for a rehearing and this was granted. The rehearing proceeded on 21 November 2022, again before Judge Cameron. There were two police witnesses. One was cross-examined by Mr Hapi and the other was not. Mr Hapi elected not to give or call evidence. He was again convicted.2

Factual background

[8] The evidence of the two police officers was that on the evening of 5 August 2020 they were on duty in uniform in a marked patrol car. They saw a vehicle do an unexpected three-point turn in front of them so they followed the vehicle and stopped it in order to check the details of the driver.

[9]Mr Hapi was the driver of the vehicle and his brother was the passenger.

1 Police v Hapi [2021] NZDC 11573.
2 Police v Hapi [2022] NZDC 24926.

[10] Mr Hapi refused to give his identification details. His brother was verbally aggressive and was encouraging Mr Hapi not to show his driver’s licence or identify himself. The police officers warned Mr Hapi that if he did not provide his details they would arrest him and for that purpose would break the side window of his car so they could unlock the door. Mr Hapi was still uncooperative and so the police broke the window, opened the door and arrested Mr Hapi. Mr Hapi did not resist. However, his brother was being aggressive and confrontational.

[11] The two police officers handcuffed Mr Hapi and put him in the back of the police vehicle.

[12] The confrontation between the brother and one of the police officers got to the point where the male police officer used his taser,…

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] NZHC 742
Case: [2023] NZHC 742
Decision Date: 4 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr. Jordan Nga Potiki Hapi appealed his conviction for wilful damage against the New Zealand Police. The incident in question occurred on 5 August 2020, when Mr Hapi allegedly kicked out a window of a police car during an arrest. Mr Hapi represented himself throughout the proceedings. The court had to decide whether Mr Hapi’s conviction was just and whether the trial process was fair. The court considered Mr Hapi's claims of procedural errors, perjury, and alleged breaches of his rights. However, the evidence provided by the police officers was consistent and uncontradicted, showing that Mr Hapi had intentionally damaged the police vehicle while lawfully detained.

The court found that Judge Cameron was entitled to convict Mr Hapi as the evidence supported the conclusion that Mr Hapi deliberately smashed the window. Even if his actions were motivated by concern for his brother, this did not constitute a defence. The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed, as the court found no miscarriage of justice. Mr Hapi was convicted and ordered to pay a fine of $300 and reparation of $350 for the broken window.

Orders