Jones v Wallace - [2020] NZHC 1721

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND [NAME OF REGISTRY]

WHANGAREI REGISTRY

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

CIV-2020-488-10

[2020] NZHC 1721

UNDER The Harassment Act 1997

BETWEEN

JONATHON MELVYN JONES and SAMANTHA JAYNE JONES

Appellants

AND

JOANNE DAVINA WALLACE

Respondent

Hearing: 15 July 2020

Appearances:

Appellants in person

N Hartwell for Respondent

Judgment:

17 July 2020

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against issue of restraining order]

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 July 2020 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:
Webb Ross McNab Kilpatrick Ltd, Whangarei

JONES v WALLACE [2020] NZHC 1721 [17 July 2020]

Copy to: Appellants

[1] Mr and Mrs Jones and Ms Joanne Wallace are neighbours. Their relationship has been fraught for a considerable period.

[2] On 27 November 2018, Judge G M Harrison granted Mr and Mrs Jones a restraining order against Ms Wallace under s 16 of the Harassment Act 1997 (the Act).1 Mr and Mrs Jones sought to have the order last for a period of five years but the Judge held that a period of one year was sufficient in the first instance.2

[3] Issues continued to arise over the next 12 months. Mr and Mrs Jones therefore renewed their application for an extension of the restraining order at the end of 2019. In a judgment delivered on 5 December 2019, Judge Harrison granted an extension of the restraining order for a further period of five years.3 The Judge also granted a cross- application by Ms Wallace for a restraining order against Mr and Mrs Jones for the same period.

[4] Mr and Mrs Jones appeal against the Judge’s decision. Ms Wallace has not cross-appealed against the decision to extend the restraining order against her for a further five year period.

Relevant principles

[5]The Act defines the term “harassment” as follows:

3 Meaning of “harassment”

(1)For the purposes of this Act, a person harasses another person if he or she engages in a pattern of behaviour that is directed against that other person, being a pattern of behaviour that includes doing any specified act to the other person on at least 2 separate occasions within a period of 12 months.

(2)To avoid any doubt,—

(a)The specified acts required for the purposes of subsection (1) may be the same type of specified act on each separate occasion, or different types of specified acts:

1 Jones v Wallace [2018] NZDC 24253.
2 At [16].
3 Jones v Wallace [2019] NZDC 24626.

(b)The specified acts need not be done to the same person on each separate occasion, as long as the pattern of behaviour is directed against the same person.

(3)For the purposes of this Act, a person also harasses another person if—

(a)he or she engages in a pattern of behaviour that is directed against that other person; and

(b)that pattern of behaviour includes doing any specified act to the other person that is one continuing act carried…

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 Jones v Wallace

Details

AGLC: Jones v Wallace [2020] NZHC 1721
Case: [2020] NZHC 1721
Decision Date: 17 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jones v Wallace, the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Jones, appealed against the duration of a restraining order issued against them by the District Court, in favor of their neighbor, Ms. Joanne Wallace. The initial restraining order was issued for a period of one year, and subsequently extended for a further five years by Judge Harrison. The appellants argued that the duration of the restraining order should be reduced to twelve months, while Ms. Wallace did not cross-appeal the decision. The legal issues before the court were whether the two acts of harassment established by Ms. Wallace were sufficient to warrant a restraining order, and if so, whether the duration of the order should be five years or reduced to twelve months.

The court found that only two of the six alleged acts of harassment were proved, namely, Mr. Jones following Ms. Wallace in her motor vehicle and verbally abusing her, and Mrs. Jones acting in an offensive manner towards Ms. Wallace. The court held that these two acts were sufficient to warrant the issuance of a restraining order, as they involved accosting and caused fear for Ms. Wallace's safety. However, the court found that the duration of the restraining order against the appellants should be reduced to twelve months, as the two acts of harassment were at the lower end of the seriousness scale and Ms. Wallace had not previously applied for a restraining order against them.

The appeal was allowed to the extent that the duration of the restraining order against Mr. and Mrs. Jones was reduced from five years to twelve months, set to expire on 5 December 2020. There was no order for costs, but the appellants were entitled to be reimbursed by Ms. Wallace in respect of any disbursements they had expended in advancing the appeal.

Orders