Johnson v Police - [2019] NZHC 2966

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2019-485-67

[2019] NZHC 2966

BETWEEN
SHAUN JOHNSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 12 November 2019

Counsel:

T W Luders and J E Spiers for Appellant S K Brennan for Respondent

Judgment:

13 November 2019

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Johnson appeals against his conviction for obtaining $771 by deception through a Trade Me auction.1 Mr Johnson was convicted after a Judge-alone trial in the District Court on 5 April 2019.2 His ground of appeal is that the District Court erred in its assessment of the evidence and failed to provide adequate reasons.

Background and District Court trial

[2] Most of the facts are not disputed. In 2016, Mr Johnson operated an address verified account on the online auction website, Trade Me. There was evidence in the District Court of several transactions made, apparently without issue, around the time the offending is alleged to have occurred.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 240(1)(a) and 241(b); maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment.
2 Police v Johnson [2019] NZDC 6577.

JOHNSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2966 [13 November 2019]

[3] On 1 June 2016, the complainant purchased an Apple MacBook Pro laptop from Mr Johnson for $756 plus $15 for an overnight courier. The complainant then paid $771 into Mr Johnson’s bank account and provided his address for delivery. The money appeared as cleared funds in Mr Johnson’s bank account the same day.

[4] On 2 June 2016, the complainant sent two emails to Mr Johnson requesting a tracking number and asking for confirmation Mr Johnson had sent the laptop. That evening, Mr Johnson replied:

Hi, yes my wife was going to post today she will be home around 10 to confirm, thanks.

[5] On 5 June 2016, the complainant sent a further email to Mr Johnson asking if he had sent the laptop and again requesting the tracking number. The complainant sent a further email on 7 June 2016, saying he had not yet received the laptop and pointing out it was supposed to be sent by overnight courier. On 8 June 2016, the complainant sent a further email consisting of a series of question marks and exclamation marks. Mr Johnson replied on 8 June 2016 as follows:

Hi, you should have it buy now, will find tracking number and check what the story is.

[6]Nearly two hours later, the complainant sent a further email to Mr Johnson:

Can you please reply asap, need it for urgent last week Thursday or Friday, its almost week mate, please ask your wife asap and reply with tracking number.

[7] There was no further correspondence from Mr Johnson. The same day (8 June), the complainant reported Mr Johnson’s account to Trade Me, explaining it had been over a week, Mr Johnson had not supplied the tracking number for the overnight courier and he had not been clearly responding. Trade Me disabled Mr Johnson’s…

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 Johnson v Police

Details

AGLC: Johnson v Police [2019] NZHC 2966
Case: [2019] NZHC 2966
Decision Date: 13 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Johnson v Police concerns the conviction of Shaun Johnson for obtaining $771 by deception through a Trade Me auction. Johnson was found guilty by a Judge alone in the District Court on 5 April 2019, and he now appeals that conviction to the High Court, arguing that the District Court erred in its assessment of the evidence and failed to provide adequate reasons. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the District Court erred in convicting Johnson of obtaining by deception, and if so, whether this constituted a miscarriage of justice warranting a new trial.

The court examined the evidence presented at the District Court trial and the reasoning provided by the trial Judge. Johnson argued that the Judge failed to provide adequate reasons for his decision and that the Judge erred in law by considering Johnson's conduct after being charged with the offence. The Crown argued that while the Judge failed to provide adequate reasons, no miscarriage of justice occurred because the guilty verdict was supported by the evidence at trial.

The court found that while the Judge's reasons were lacking, they were sufficient to conclude that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. The Judge's comments on Johnson's post-charge conduct were more relevant to assessing Johnson's credibility rather than the elements of the charge. The court reviewed the evidence and found that it supported the inference that Johnson never intended to send the laptop and deceived the complainant. The court concluded that Johnson's evidence was unconvincing and that there were legitimate grounds for the Judge to convict him. The appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed by the District Court be dismissed.

Orders