Johnston v Electrical Workers Registration Board - [2022] NZHC 3190

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2022-443-55

[2022] NZHC 3190

UNDER the Criminal Procedure Act 2011

IN THE MATTER OF

an appeal against sentence

BETWEEN

IAN LESLIE JOHNSTON

Appellant

AND

ELECTRICAL WORKERS REGISTRATION BOARD

Respondent

Hearing: 29 November 2022

Counsel:

M J Utting for the Appellant

D P Neild and A G McCluskey

Judgment:

30 November 2022

JUDGMENT (No. 2) OF CHURCHMAN J

Solicitors:
Thomson, O’Neil & Co, Eltham, for Appellant Crown Solicitor, Wellington, for Respondent

JOHNSTON v ELECTRICAL WORKERS REGISTRATION BOARD (No. 2) [2022] NZHC 3190 [30
November 2022]

Introduction

[1] On 30 September 2022, Ian Johnston (the appellant) was sentenced by Judge Greig in the New Plymouth District Court to pay reparation of $5,719, and a $1,000 fine. He pleaded guilty to a single charge of carrying out unauthorised prescribed electrical work.1

[2] Mr Johnston appeals that sentence on the basis that the level of reparation ordered was excessive.

[3] Mr Johnston’s appeal is opposed by the Electrical Workers Registration Board, who say that there was no error in the sentence imposed.

Background

Factual Background

[4] The Electrical Workers Registration Board oversees the registration of people carrying out prescribed electrical work. A person must be registered in order to carry out prescribed electrical work. Mr Johnston developed a six section subdivision in New Plymouth. As part of that development, an electrical contractor installed electrical services to boundary boxes.

[5] On 11 February 2019, Mr Johnston supplied and installed underground cables from the boundary boxes to each section. This involved the installation of a 95 millimetre aluminium service main cable.

[6] This was work that is defined by the Electricity Act 1992 as prescribed work, required to be carried out by a registered person. Mr Johnston is not a registered person. He was not supervised in performing that work, and no Certificate of Compliance was completed for that work. It was unauthorised work.

[7] Ian and Bobby Clark purchased one of the lots in the development, but were unable to proceed with building their planned dwelling as the power had not been

1 Electricity Act 1992, ss 74 and 162; maximum penalty of a $50,000 fine.

provided to the site in a legal manner. They engaged two registered electricians who advised that the underground cabling from the boundary to site was not done by a registered electrician and so had no Certificate of Compliance. One of those two electricians laid a complaint with the Electrical Workers Registration Board. The Clarks requested through their solicitors that Mr Johnston rectify the work. He did not do so. The Clarks then also made a complaint to the Electrical Workers Registration Board.

[8] On 15 April 2019, Mr Johnston obtained a Certificate of Verification for the work, which was given by one of the electricians that had previously inspected the work. That verifies that the work is in accordance with the prescribed industry standards but does not amount to a…

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 Johnston v Electrical Workers Registration Board

Details

AGLC: Johnston v Electrical Workers Registration Board [2022] NZHC 3190
Case: [2022] NZHC 3190
Decision Date: 30 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Ian Leslie Johnston appeals against his sentence for carrying out unauthorised electrical work. The appeal is opposed by the Electrical Workers Registration Board, who argue that the sentence was correctly imposed. Johnston argues that the level of reparation ordered was excessive. The key issue is whether the reparation order was made in error, and if so, whether it was manifestly excessive. The court held that the reparation order was appropriate as Johnston had caused delay and additional costs to the purchasers of the property he developed. The appeal was dismissed as there was no error in the sentence imposed, and the reparation amount was not manifestly excessive. The reparation ordered was a just and common-sense approach to compensating the victims for the harm caused by Johnston's actions. The court found that the reparation order was within the Judge's discretion and did not amount to an error warranting appeal.

Orders