Hunn v Police - [2019] NZHC 1975

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

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

CRI-2019-488-000017

[2019] NZHC 1975

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against order to pay reparation

BETWEEN

CHRISTINE MAUREEN HUNN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 12 August 2019

Appearances:

C M Hunn (Self-represented Appellant) in Person 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 4.30 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

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

Copy To: C M Hunn, Hikurangi

HUNN v POLICE [2019] NZHC 1975 [13 August 2019]

[1] Ms Hunn was convicted on one charge of wilful damage following a judge- alone trial by Judge Spear in the Whangarei District Court.1 Ms Hunn kicked her former partner’s car, a 1993 maroon Jaguar Sovereign, several times. Judge Spear sentenced her to nine months’ supervision and ordered her to pay reparation of
$4,256.15. Ms Hunn now appeals that sentence.

The offending

[2] The charges arise out of events on the morning of 2 January 2019. Ms Hunn went to the home of her ex-partner’s new partner and had a discussion with her that morning. Ms Hunn asked to see her former partner, and some sort of argument ensued.

[3] Ms Hunn retreated down the steps of the house to where her former partner’s car was parked. She yelled abuse at her former partner, who had by this time appeared in the doorway, and kicked his car a number of times. She caused two large dents, and possibly some smaller ones.

District Court sentence

[4] Ms Hunn pleaded not guilty but admitted to kicking the car. The Judge found that Ms Hunn had the required intent to cause the damage and convicted her on the charge in an oral judgment delivered the same day.

[5] The Judge proceeded to sentencing immediately after entering conviction. There is no written sentencing judgment, but there is a transcript of the sentencing discussion. There was no reparation report before the Judge, and the Judge did not adjourn the sentencing to order one. However, he did make enquiries of Ms Hunn’s counsel as to her ability to pay before making the reparation order.

[6] The Judge then sentenced Ms Hunn to nine months’ supervision and ordered her to pay reparation in the sum of $4,256.15 at a rate to be fixed by Collections. The reparation sum was based on a quote dated 7 January 2019 from a panel beater. That invoice was attached to a reparation schedule provided by the police.

1 New Zealand Police v Hunn [2019] NZDC 11768.

[7] Ms Hunn says that she did not receive a copy of this quote until after the sentencing hearing. She did not, therefore, have an opportunity to dispute the quantum of the cost of repairs. She has since obtained another quote dated 6 August 2019, which estimates the cost of repairs at $2,274.13. That…

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 Hunn v Police

Details

AGLC: Hunn v Police [2019] NZHC 1975
Case: [2019] NZHC 1975
Decision Date: 13 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hunn v Police involved an appeal by Ms. Christine Maureen Hunn against an order to pay reparation, imposed following her conviction for wilful damage to her former partner’s car. Ms. Hunn was sentenced to nine months’ supervision and ordered to pay reparation of $4,256.15 by Judge Spear in the Whangarei District Court. The appeal focused on the reparation component of the sentence, particularly the method by which the reparation amount was determined. The High Court was tasked with deciding whether the reparation order was validly made and if the amount was appropriate, considering Ms. Hunn's financial circumstances and the availability of reparation reports.

The court examined whether the reparation order was lawfully made, particularly considering that a reparation report was not obtained. Section 33 of the Sentencing Act outlines the circumstances under which a court may order a reparation report. The High Court found that while the District Court Judge believed he had sufficient information to make the reparation order, the new evidence presented by Ms. Hunn suggested that the information relied upon by the Judge may have been flawed, potentially resulting in a manifestly excessive reparation amount. The court concluded that the reparation order should be quashed and the case remitted back to the District Court for re-sentencing with the benefit of a reparation report.

The reasoning of the court emphasized the importance of obtaining accurate information about the extent of the damage and the offender’s capacity to pay reparation. Given the potential impact of the reparation order on the overall sentence, the court decided it was appropriate to re-assess the entire sentence, including the supervision order, in light of a reparation report and any other necessary reports. The High Court quashed the sentence and remitted the case back to the District Court for reconsideration.

Orders