Haze v Police - [2019] NZHC 1974

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2019-488-000006

[2019] NZHC 1974

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against sentence

BETWEEN

ROMOARE HAZE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 12 August 2019

Counsel:

A M Harvey for the Appellant C S Taylor for the Respondent

Judgment:

13 August 2019

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 August 2019 at 3.30 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Thomson Wilson, Whangarei
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Whangarei

HAZE v POLICE [2019] NZHC 1974 [13 August 2019]

[1] Mr Haze pleaded guilty to one charge of indecent assault after the complainant gave evidence at his jury trial in September 2018.1 His application for a discharge without conviction was declined and he was sentenced to 150 hours’ community work and 12 months’ supervision.2 Mr Haze appeals the decision refusing him a discharge without conviction.

The offending

[2] Although the complainant had given evidence at trial, Mr Haze’s guilty plea was in relation to the summary of facts. The following is taken from that document.

[3] Mr Haze and the victim were unknown to each other. In early 2017, Mr Haze approached the victim while she was shopping in Whangarei. He told her his name and asked if he could take her to lunch and for a walk. She declined.

[4] The incident giving rise to the indecent assault charge occurred at about 6 pm on 4 April 2017. The victim had been to the gym and was walking to her car. She got into her car and shut the door. Mr Haze came running up to the car and knocked on the window. The victim opened the door. Mr Haze crouched down, said hello, and began asking her questions about the gym. He then began asking her what she did to train her arms and legs. By this time the victim was feeling extremely uncomfortable.

[5] Mr Haze then put his hand on top of the victim’s right calf muscle and moved his hand up and down saying all the time that it felt good. The victim told Mr Haze not to touch her. Mr Haze removed his hand. He then offered to show the victim his biceps. The victim told him to go away and leave her alone. Mr Haze then took off his jumper and began showing the victim his biceps. He continued talking about training at the gym, asking her if she wanted to go for a walk, and making enquiries about her husband.

1 Contrary to s 135 of the Crimes Act 1961; maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
2 R v Haze [2019] NZDC 5273.

[6] It was at this point that Mr Haze reached into the car, put his right hand on the victim’s leg and began to rub…

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 Haze v Police

Details

AGLC: Haze v Police [2019] NZHC 1974
Case: [2019] NZHC 1974
Decision Date: 13 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Haze appeals the District Court’s decision to refuse him a discharge without conviction following his guilty plea to a charge of indecent assault. The District Court sentenced him to 150 hours’ community work and 12 months’ supervision. The appeal raises two issues: whether the District Court was correct to find the offending moderately serious, and whether the consequences of conviction are out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The High Court finds that the offending was moderately serious, and that the consequences of conviction are not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The appeal is dismissed. The District Court’s decision to refuse a discharge without conviction is affirmed.

The offending was deliberate, persistent and involved skin to skin contact and kissing on the victim’s neck. The victim was in a confined space and could not avoid the offender’s advances. In those circumstances, it was open to the District Court to assess the gravity of the offending as moderately serious. The offender’s previous conviction for male assaults female was an aggravating factor. The offender’s childhood experiences, although relevant to his offending, did not mitigate the seriousness of the offending to any great extent. The consequences of conviction, in terms of employment and the first-stage warning, were ordinary consequences flowing from offending of this nature. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders