Hintz v Police - [2019] NZHC 2805

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2019-412-000010

[2019] NZHC 2805

BETWEEN
JOEL NIKOLI HINTZ

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 23 October 2019

Appearances:

G L Turkington for Appellant C Power for Respondent

Judgment:

31 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 October 2019 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date 31 October 2019

[1] On 7 November 2017, the appellant, Joel Hintz, pleaded guilty to a charge of injuring in circumstances that if death had occurred, he would have been guilty of manslaughter.1 He now appeals that conviction, seeking that his guilty plea be set aside and the charge remitted to the District Court for rehearing.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 190.

HINTZ v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2805 [31 October 2019]

[2] Mr Hintz acknowledges that an appeal against conviction after a guilty plea has been entered will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. However, in this case, despite being advised by experienced counsel, Mr Turkington submits that the circumstances in which Mr Hintz entered his guilty plea produced a miscarriage of justice.2 This is because:

(a)Mr Hintz was “substantially impaired” when he entered a plea of guilty;

(b)he had a clear defence of self-defence to the charge;

(c)he was inadequately advised of such a defence; and

(d)that, at least, a discharge without conviction should have been applied for.

A further ground was introduced in submissions and focused on at hearing, which was that the summary of facts was not agreed upon before the plea was entered.

[3] Mr Hintz says that these factors, either individually, or in combination, gave rise to a miscarriage of justice, and warrant the appeal being allowed.

Leave to appeal

[4] The appeal is brought well out of time, being filed on 1 March 2019, and more than a year after the conviction was entered and Mr Hintz sentenced. Mr Hintz explains his delay in lodging the appeal saying that initially he did not understand there was anything he could do. However, after newspaper coverage of his conviction and at the urging of his parents, he consulted a lawyer in June 2018. Mr Turkington advised that a medical report was required for the appeal and Mr Hintz was unable to see a psychiatrist until late January 2019 because of a shortage of qualified mental health assessors. His appeal was filed as soon as reasonably practicable after the psychiatric report was completed.

2 As required by s 232(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

[5] Leave is opposed by the respondent, noting that the appeal could have been filed at an earlier date.

[6] However, as the respondent accepts, the question of whether leave should be granted depends on whether it is in the interests of justice in the particular case.3 That requires consideration of the wider interests of society and the finality of decisions to…

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 Hintz v Police

Details

AGLC: Hintz v Police [2019] NZHC 2805
Case: [2019] NZHC 2805
Decision Date: 31 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hintz v Police, Joel Hintz, the appellant, appealed against his conviction for injuring in circumstances that if death had occurred, he would have been guilty of manslaughter. The District Court had accepted his guilty plea, and he now sought to set aside that plea and remit the charge to the District Court for rehearing. The High Court was required to determine whether the appellant's guilty plea produced a miscarriage of justice and warranted the appeal being allowed. The court had to consider whether the appellant was substantially impaired when he entered a plea of guilty, if he had a clear defence of self-defence, if he was adequately advised of such a defence, and if a discharge without conviction should have been applied for. The court also had to consider if the summary of facts was agreed upon before the plea was entered. The High Court held that the appeal was brought well out of time, but leave was granted because the appellant had reasonably explained the delay in filing his appeal, and no prejudice arose to the respondent in the appeal being filed out of time. The court found that the appellant was under stress at the time of his last court appearance but that the various options and their advantages and disadvantages had been traversed over the three weeks leading to that appearance. The option to plead guilty was not a surprising decision made in the heat of the moment but rather, was an option that had been discussed right from the outset. The court held that the appellant did understand the advantages and disadvantages of the options being proposed over this period and that opting to plead guilty under the increased stress which the appellant felt following the advice that diversion would not be available, was insufficient to render the ensuing conviction a miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the appellant had a reasonable understanding of what a discharge without conviction was and that he was adequately advised on his legal options. However, he chose not to pursue either option to stem further cost, prevent the need to return to Dunedin yet again, and to avoid the risk that such a course may fail in any event. The court concluded that the combination of circumstances was such that a miscarriage of justice did not occur, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders