Heta v The Queen - [2015] NZHC 144

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2015-463-000010 [2015] NZHC 144

BETWEEN
RAYMOND TE MUTUTERE HETA

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 11 February 2015

Appearances:

S Robb for Appellant
A D Hill for Respondent

Judgment:

12 February 2015

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 12 February 2015 at 11.30 am
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date………………………

HETA v R [2015] NZHC 144 [12 February 2015]

[1] Following an appearance in the District Court at Rotorua on 27 January 2015

Judge J J Weir found Raymond Heta guilty of contempt for “using extremely foul language and making sure that [he was] heard by everyone” and sentenced him to one month’s imprisonment.1 Mr Heta appeals both the conviction and sentence, asserting that his conduct did not amount to contempt and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

[2] Contempt of court is governed by s 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 which applies to any person who:

(a) Wilfully insults a judicial officer or a Registrar or any officer of the court or any juror or any witness during his or her sitting or attendance in court or in going to or returning from the court; or

(b) Wilfully interrupts the proceedings of a court or other misbehaves in court; or

(c) Wilfully and without lawful excuse disobeys any order or direction of the court in the course of the hearing of any proceeding.

[3] Section 365(2) permits a judicial officer to order the person detained until the court rises and, if he or she thinks fit, to impose a sentence not exceeding three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $1,000.

[4] Near identical provisions appear at s 112 of the District Courts Act 1947 and s 56C of the Judicature Act 1908. In his oral judgment the Judge did not identify which provision he was proceeding under.

Did Mr Heta commit contempt?

[5] The circumstances of the alleged offending are recorded briefly by Judge

Weir in his sentencing notes:

The other issue is your contempt of Court, using extremely foul language and making sure that you were heard by everyone. That does amount to contempt. You have now apologised for that and I take account of your apology. But nevertheless, the message has to be sent out to people like you who think they can act however they want to in this court. That is not going to happen. When it does happen it is going to be dealt with firmly.

1 Ministry of Justice v Heta [2015] NZDC 1061.

[6] Ms Robb, who appeared for Mr Heta in the District Court and on this appeal, set out her recollection of events in her submissions:

Mr Heta’s case had been stood down by Judge Weir for further enquiries to be made in relation to his active charges. As Mr Heta was backing out of court he attempted to communicate with members of his…

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 Heta v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Heta v The Queen [2015] NZHC 144
Case: [2015] NZHC 144
Decision Date: 12 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Heta v The Queen involved Raymond Te Mututere Heta, who appealed his conviction and sentence for contempt of court, as handed down by Judge J J Weir in the District Court at Rotorua. The appeal was heard by Justice Courtney of the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry on 12 February 2015. The appeal focused on whether Mr Heta's conduct amounted to contempt and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the appellant's conduct, specifically using a swear word while speaking to a family member in the gallery, constituted contempt of court under the relevant statutes.

The court examined the provisions of section 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which defines contempt, and noted that contempt of court is intended to protect the administration of justice, not merely the dignity of judicial officers. The court highlighted the requirement of wilfulness in determining contempt and noted that such convictions typically follow sustained and deliberate disobedience or discourtesy. The court found that Mr Heta's use of a single swear word, which was not directed at the judge or related to the proceedings, did not rise to the level of contempt as it lacked the necessary wilfulness and seriousness. Consequently, the court concluded that the District Court judge erred in characterising the conduct as contempt.

Given that the appeal against the conviction was successful, the conviction was quashed. As a result, the appeal against the sentence was deemed unnecessary. Justice Courtney's judgment led to the quashing of the conviction for contempt, thereby resolving the appeal in favour of the appellant.

Orders