Kronfield v Police - [2018] NZHC 66

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2017-412-28

[2018] NZHC 66

BETWEEN
MARGARET DENISE KRONFELD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Date of hearing: 7 November 2017, AVL hearing 14 December 2017

Appearances:

A G Speed and E M Gresson for Appellant R P Bates and R Smith for Respondent

Judgment:

7 February 2018

JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J (APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTIONS)

A.INTRODUCTION

[1] This appeal is allowed in respect of one of four convictions entered in the District Court, but is otherwise dismissed. This Court had the advantage of argument which was not put before the District Court Judge.

[2] Ms Kronfeld appeals against her convictions on one charge of criminal harassment by sending email messages to the complainant, “[Mrs X]”, and three charges of intentionally accessing a computer system without authorisation.1 She earlier pleaded guilty to charges of sending fictitious messages, and making phone calls but not speaking when the phone was answered.

1 Police v Kronfeld [2017] NZDC 6769.

KRONFELD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 66 [7 February 2018]

[3] She appeals against all four convictions, and concurrent sentences of 120 hours community work imposed in the District Court at Dunedin on those charges and other charges to which she pleaded guilty.2 The appeal against sentence stands adjourned pending this judgment.

[4] The setting for the prosecution is a personal relationship between the appellant and [Mrs X]’s husband, [Mr X], over several years, after they met as business colleagues. The relationship soured and the charges stem from the appellant’s conduct after that time.

[5]Charges were laid as follows:

Charge No CRN Date of offence Offence Description Legislative Reference

1

Guilty plea
15004006584
Between the 18th day of January 2015 and the 9th

day of March 2015

Used a telephone device for the purpose of annoying by calling up without speech with the

intention of offending the recipient [Mrs X]
Section         112(2)(a) Telecommunications Act 2001

2

Withdrawn
15004006585 Between the 26th day of February 2015 and the 5th day of April 2015
Used a telephone device for the purpose of annoying by [Mrs X] by creating 6 fake email accounts with google and using these false identities to send the victim 25 emails with the intention of annoying the

recipient [Mrs X]
Section         112(2)(a) Telecommunications Act 2001

3

Withdrawn
15004006586
Between the 29th day of March 2015 and the 31st day of March

2015

In using a telephone device sent

9 emails using indecent language with the intention of offending the recipient [Mrs X]
Section             112(1) Telecommunications Act 2001

4

Guilty plea
15004006587 Between the 27th day of February 2015 and the 5th day of April 2015
In using a telecommunications device knowingly sent fictitious messages namely using 3 false identities to send 9 fictitious

emails
Section         112(2)(b) Telecommunications Act 2001

5

Found Guilty
15004006588 On the 5th day of April 2015
Harassed [Mrs X]…

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 Kronfield v Police

Details

AGLC: Kronfield v Police [2018] NZHC 66
Case: [2018] NZHC 66
Decision Date: 7 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Margaret Denise Kronfeld appeals against four convictions in the District Court, but the appeal against one of the convictions is allowed. The appeal against sentence is adjourned pending this judgment. The appeal against conviction for criminal harassment is allowed because of a technicality, while the appeal against conviction for unauthorised access of a computer system is dismissed. The appellant was convicted on one charge of criminal harassment and three charges of unauthorised access of a computer system. The appeal against the conviction for criminal harassment was allowed because of double jeopardy issues. The appeal against the conviction for unauthorised access of a computer system was dismissed as the appellant did not have authority to access the computer systems in question. The appeal against conviction for criminal harassment was allowed because only one email of 5 April 2015 survived the challenge that they were also facts of the charge admitted, or the charges withdrawn. The appeal against conviction for unauthorised access of a computer system was dismissed as the appellant did not have authority to access the computer systems in question.

Orders