Legal Research
Cases
Hugo v Police

Hugo v Police

Case [2024] NZHC 2312 16 August 2024

Appeal

Miscarriage of Justice

Retrospectivity

Finality of Judgments

Jurisdiction

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-409-118 CRI-2024-409-119 CRI-2024-409-120 CRI-2024-409-121

CRI-2024-409-122 [2024] NZHC 2312

BETWEEN
LOGAN PAUL HUGO

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

AND

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

Hearing: 8 August 2024

Appearances:

A M S Williams and K N Stitely for Appellant M W Fulton for Respondents

Judgment:

16 August 2024

Reissued:

22 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 August 2024 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

HUGO v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 2312 [16 August 2024]

Introduction

[1] Logan Paul Hugo has been convicted of two charges of failing to comply with his reporting obligations,1 one charge of breaching special conditions of an interim supervision order (ISO) and three charges of breaching an extended supervision order (ESO).2

[2] Mr Hugo appeals his convictions on the last four of these charges on the grounds the ESO was overturned on appeal as the Court of Appeal found that one of the statutory requirements for making an ESO was not met on the evidence. In the circumstances he says neither an ISO or an ESO should ever have been imposed, and he should be allowed to appeal his convictions for breaching them.

Facts

[3] On 8 September 2021, Mr Hugo was placed on the New Zealand Child Sex Offender Register and on 9 September 2021 he was advised of his reporting obligations.

[4] On 27 September 2021, Mr Hugo was sentenced to 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment in the Christchurch District Court for six charges of possessing objectionable material, two charges of indecent assault of a female under 12, one charge of meeting a young person following sexual grooming, and one charge of sexual connection with a young person aged 12–16.

[5] On 8 September 2022, Mr Hugo became subject to an ISO for a period of 12 months. The ISO was due to expire on 7 September 2023. On 9 September 2022, Mr Hugo was inducted into his ISO.

[6] A special condition of the ISO states that Mr Hugo is ‘not to use or possess any device capable of accessing the internet unless you are under the direct supervision of

1 Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016, s 39 — maximum penalty one year imprisonment or $2000 fine.
2 Parole Act 2002, s 107T — maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.

an adult approved in writing by a Probation Officer, or unless you have the prior written approval of a Probation Officer’.

[7] On 9 August 2023, New Zealand Police executed a search warrant at Mr Hugo’s residential address. In breach of his reporting obligations, a mobile phone capable of accessing the internet was located. The phone contained multiple social media accounts, consisting of Snapchat, Tinder, Badoo, Facebook and Facebook Messenger. By possessing a smartphone, Mr Hugo breached his special condition not to possess internet…

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 Hugo v Police

Details

AGLC: Hugo v Police [2024] NZHC 2312
Case: [2024] NZHC 2312
Decision Date: 16 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Logan Paul Hugo appeals against his convictions for failing to comply with his reporting obligations, and for breaching special conditions of an interim supervision order (ISO) and an extended supervision order (ESO). The Court of Appeal overturned the ESO, finding that the statutory requirement for making an ESO was not met on the evidence. Hugo contends that the ESO was unlawfully imposed, and as a result neither an ISO nor an ESO should have been imposed, and he should be allowed to appeal his convictions for breaching them. The central issue for the court was whether leave should be granted to appeal out of time. The court found that the question of whether leave should be granted really turned on whether, in all the circumstances, justice required that leave be given. The court found that it did not. The appeal against convictions was dismissed.

Orders