L v Police HC Tauranga CRI 2009-470-4

[2009] NZHC 622

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI 2009-470-4

L

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         26 May 2009

Appearances: Appellant in person

C A Harold for Respondent

Judgment:      26 May 2009

JUDGMENT OF KEANE J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

L V POLICE HC TAU CRI 2009-470-4  26 May 2009

[1]      On  2  December  2008   L  ,  on  a  recorded  plea  of  guilty,  was convicted  of  giving  information  she  knew  to  be  false  or  misleading  to  an enforcement officer on 10 July 2008. She was discharged but required to pay costs of

$130. In appealing her conviction, despite her plea, Ms L   puts in issue whether she entered the plea at all.

[2]      Ms  L    also  contends  that  the  basis  on  which  she  was  charged  was insufficient to warrant a conviction. The effect of a conviction on her, she says, would be quite disproportionate, more especially given that she is liable to pay an infringement fee for the same essential matter.

Principles

[3]      Once a guilty plea is entered after advice especially, as there was in this case at  least  initially,   and   a   conviction   is   entered   and   sentence   imposed,   only exceptionally will an appeal against conviction or sentence have any prospect of success: R v Stretch [1982] 1 NZLR 225, CA; R v Ripia [1985] 1 NZLR 122, CA; R v Le Page (CA 297/04, 411/04), 28 April 2005. In that last case the Court said:

It is only in exceptional circumstances that an appeal against conviction will be entertained following entry of a guilty plea. An appellant must show that a miscarriage of justice will result if his appeal is not overturned and where the appellant fully appreciated the merits of his position and made an informed decision to plead guilty the conviction cannot be impugned.

Conclusions

[4]      In advancing her appeal, Ms L  , as I have said, puts in issue the very basis on which she was charged. She contends in her grounds of appeal that she did not make a statement to the enforcement officer that she knew to be false or misleading. She was between addresses.

[5]      The facts as they were before the Judge, however, were that the address that Ms L   gave proved to be one that she had left two weeks before. Compounding that, she ran from the police station, jumped into her vehicle and left, not stopping until she was apprehended some four kilometres away. She later gave an address that

was then current here in Rotorua. But in the end what stands in Ms L  ’s way, as I

have said, is the fact of her plea.

[6]      The Court’s record, which I have traversed with Ms L  , shows that on 16

July 2008 she first appeared at Tauranga. She was represented by the duty solicitor, Mr Smythe, who obtained an adjournment until 30 July to enable her to apply for legal aid. On 30 July he appeared as her counsel, he intimated that a guilty plea would be entered, and sought diversion. That was granted until 25 September 2008. As Ms L   accepts, she did not appear on 25 September. A warrant was issued for her arrest.

[7]      Ms L   next appeared on 17 November 2008. On that occasion she did enter a plea. It was one of not guilty. On what basis precisely she was remanded until

2 December 2008 I cannot say because the terms on which that happened were recorded on another information to this. It seems from the police summary, as I now see, that originally she was charged with two other offences, escape from custody and failing to stop.

[8]      On  2  December  2008  the  Judge  recorded  a  guilty  plea.  He  entered  a conviction on the basis of the plea, discharged and imposed costs. To challenge that the most that Ms L   can say is that the fact that she did not enter a plea was witnessed by a Salvation Army officer in the Tauranga District Court. But there is no evidence from that officer and this appeal has been impending for some time.

[9]      Moreover, as now appears distinctly possible, the plea attributed to Ms L   may have been entered in part at least in exchange for the police withdrawing any other information then extant.

[10]     I see no objective basis on which to revisit the plea that Ms  L   has entered. A conviction is, of course, significant in itself, I accept, but the discharge and award of costs was the most minimal response. I regret that the appeal must be

dismissed.

P.J. Keane  J