King v Police - [2021] NZHC 1217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2021-443-000016

[2021] NZHC 1217

BETWEEN
MARIE KING

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 6 May 2021

Appearances:

N P Bourke for the Appellant

L A Blencowe for the Respondent

Judgment:

27 May 2021

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] The appellant, Ms King,1 appeals against the making of a protection order in favour of her 14 year old daughter, imposed when Judge Harrison sentenced Ms King on 22 March 2021 for assault.2

[2]In summary, Ms King submits:

(a) section 123B of the Sentencing Act 2008 should be interpreted to preclude jurisdiction to impose a protection order solely in favour of a child; and

(b) alternatively, if there was jurisdiction to impose such an order, this was not necessary in the circumstances of this case.

1 To avoid identification of the appellant’s daughter, the appellant’s name has been anonymised.
2 Police v King […].

KING v POLICE [2021] NZHC 1217 [27 May 2021]

Background

[3]On 15 December 2020, Ms King pleaded guilty to two charges of assault.3

[4] Ms King had been in a relationship with one victim, her partner, for the past 18 years although for the past five years the relationship had been on and off. The other victim was their only child who was aged 14.

[5] On the evening of 5 September 2020, the parents and their daughter were at an address where a heated argument developed. Ms King walked in and out of the house collecting property and putting it in the car she was intent on taking. While her partner was sitting on the couch, Ms King approached him, grabbed his genitals and spoke contemptuously to him. This was in the presence of their daughter. When her partner asked for the car keys which Ms King had taken, she pushed past him and entered the car. When the partner reached into the vehicle to grab the keys, she lashed out at him and scratched his face, causing him to bleed. While the partner was in the house phoning the Police, Ms King approached her daughter who was sitting on the couch, spoke to her angrily and punched her right arm four or five times.

[6] When Ms King first appeared in court on these charges on 11 September 2020, she was bailed on conditions that she reside at a different address to the victims, that she have no contact with the victims and that she not be within close proximity of the victims’ address or her daughter’s school.

[7] Afterwards, there were resolution discussions with the Police. The prosecutor advised that, provided Ms King complied with ongoing counselling, the Police would seek a deferred sentencing.

[8] On 15 December 2020, Ms King pleaded guilty to two charges of common assault. On being told of the understanding reached with the Police, the Judge did not consider it necessary to order a pre-sentence report. Ms King was remanded to…

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 King v Police

Details

AGLC: King v Police [2021] NZHC 1217
Case: [2021] NZHC 1217
Decision Date: 27 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Marie King appeals against the making of a protection order in favour of her 14-year-old daughter, imposed by the District Court when sentencing Ms King for assault. The appeal raises two issues: first, whether the District Court had jurisdiction to impose a protection order solely in favour of a child, and second, whether the imposition of such an order was necessary in the circumstances of the case. The High Court found that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to impose a protection order in favour of a child under the Sentencing Act, and that even if it did, the order was not necessary in this case. The appeal is allowed, the protection order is quashed, and the other orders made on sentencing remain in effect.

Orders