Legal Research
Cases
Kipping v Electrical Workers Registration Board

Kipping v Electrical Workers Registration Board

Case [2024] NZHC 1557 13 June 2024

Appeal

Undue Delay

Criminal Liability

Prescribed Electrical Work

Unconscionable Conduct

Judicial Review

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI 2023-409-000227

[2024] NZHC 1557

UNDER The Criminal Procedure Act 2011; the Electricity Act 1992

BETWEEN

JOHN BRIAN KIPPING

Appellant

AND

ELECTRICAL WORKERS REGISTRATION BOARD

Respondent

Hearing: 18 April 2024

Appearances:

Mr Kipping, Appellant in person A S Bagchi for the Respondent

Judgment:

13 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF TAHANA J

(Appeal against conviction and sentence)

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 June 2024 at 3.00pm

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel/Parties:
Copy to the Appellant (Mr J B Kipping) Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington

KIPPING v ELECTRICAL WORKERS REGISTRATION BOARD (Appeal against conviction and sentence) [2024] NZHC 1557 [13 June 2024]

Introduction

[1] Mr Kipping appeals the decision of Judge Callaghan dated 11 August 2023.1 Mr Kipping was charged with three charges of doing, or assisting in doing, prescribed electrical work in breach of s 74 of the Electricity Act 1992 (the Electricity Act)2 and two alternative charges of negligently doing work on an electrical installation in a manner dangerous to life.3 The Judge found Mr Kipping:

(a)guilty on two charges of doing prescribed electrical work by removing heat pumps from two properties; and

(b)not guilty on one charge of installing a heat pump when not authorised to do so.

[2]No findings were made in relation to the alternate charges.

[3] On 18 October 2023, Mr Kipping was fined $1,500 for each conviction ($3,000 in total).4

[4] Mr Kipping argued that he was denied his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the Bill of Rights) because of undue delays, denial of legal representation at the trial and denial of his right to examine witnesses. Further, he claims that the Judge erred in finding that:

(a)Mr Kipping had removed, or had assisted in the removal of, the heat pumps; and

(b)the removal of the heat pumps was “prescribed electrical work” under the Electricity Act.

1      Electrical Workers’ Registration Board v Kipping [2023] NZDC 16749 [Conviction Decision].
2      Electricity Act 1992, ss 74 and 162, maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding $50,000 in the case of an individual.
3      Section 163D.
4      Electrical Workers’ Registration Board v Kipping [2023] NZDC 25036 [Sentence Decision].

Issues

[5]The issues I need to determine on appeal are:

(a)Whether Mr Kipping’s rights under the Bill of Rights have been infringed and in particular:

(i)whether he was denied the right to be tried without undue delay;

(ii)whether he was denied the right to legal representation and/or a fair trial; and

(iii)if his rights were denied, whether his convictions should be set aside.

(b)Whether the Judge erred by:

(i)finding that Mr Kipping had removed (or assisted in the removal of) the heat pumps; and/or

(ii)finding that the removal of heat pumps constitutes prescribed electrical work under the Electricity Act.

(c)Whether leave should be granted to allow Mr Kipping to appeal his sentence and if so, whether the fines imposed are manifestly excessive.

Background

[6] The facts set out…

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 Kipping v Electrical Workers Registration Board

Details

AGLC: Kipping v Electrical Workers Registration Board [2024] NZHC 1557
Case: [2024] NZHC 1557
Decision Date: 13 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kipping v Electrical Workers Registration Board involved an appeal against both conviction and sentence. Mr Kipping was convicted of removing heat pumps from two residential properties in Christchurch in breach of the Electricity Act 1992. The issues for the High Court to determine on appeal included whether Mr Kipping’s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 had been infringed, whether the Judge erred in assessing the evidence and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court found that while there had been undue delay in bringing Mr Kipping to trial, this did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court also found that Mr Kipping was not denied his rights to legal representation or a fair trial. The Judge did not err in finding that Mr Kipping had removed the heat pumps and that the removal constituted prescribed electrical work under the Electricity Act. The Court held that the fines imposed were not manifestly excessive and the sentence was therefore affirmed. However, given the undue delay in bringing Mr Kipping to trial, the Court reduced the sentence by 25 per cent.

Orders