K v Police no.2 HC Tauranga CRI-2010-463-79

[2011] NZHC 495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2010-463-79

CRI-2010-463-80

K

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAN DPOLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         (on papers)

Appearances: H Booth for the Respondent as Applicant

Appellant in person

Judgment:      18 May 2011

JUDGMENT (NO 2) OF WOODHOUSE J (application for leave to appeal on a question of law)

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 May 2011 at 3:3 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors / Parties: The appellant

Ms H Booth, Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

K V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC TAU CRI-2010-463-79 18 May 2011

[1]      By judgment dated 7 March 2011 I allowed Mr K’s appeal against conviction

on two charges under s 78 of the Care of Children Act 2004.

[2]      The respondent has sought leave to the Court of Appeal on a question of law. The proposed question is stated in the application as follows:

Did I err in law as to the correct interpretation of an element of the offence under s 78 of the Care of Children Act 2004, namely the intent to prevent a parenting order from being complied with?

[3]      In a minute dated 31 March 2011 I asked the respondent to identify the paragraphs in the judgment said to contain the error, to assist in providing clarity on the question, and directed that any response for Mr K on the application for leave should be filed and served by 21 April 2011.

[4]      Memoranda  for  New  Zealand  Police  and  from  Mr  K  have  been  filed, although there have been delays in getting the documents to me.

[5]      The memorandum for Mr K is difficult to follow and does not appear to address the relevant issues on an application for leave under s 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act.

[6]      I am in any event satisfied that leave should be granted.  The question posed by the applicant is a question of law.   And in my judgment it is one of general importance because it bears on the application of the criminal law in relation to obligations arising under the Care of Children Act.  This is, in fact, a matter adverted to at [15] of my judgment.

[7]      Leave is granted accordingly.  The question of law is sufficiently stated in the application  and  is  recorded  above.    The  specific  paragraphs  of  my  judgment

identified by the applicant are [13]-[15].

Peter Woodhouse J