Langford v Police - [2015] NZHC 2424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-404-000081 [2015] NZHC 2424

BETWEEN
SHARON JANICE LANGFORD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 22 June 2015

Appearances:

Appellant on own behalf
NMH Whittington for the Respondent

Judgment:

8 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

This judgment is delivered by me on 8 October 2015 at 4.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar

LANGFORD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 2424 [8 October 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mrs Langford was convicted of obstructing a public way under s 22 of the

Summary Offences Act 1981. She appeals against that conviction.

[2] Mrs Langford has previously been convicted on the same charge. She appealed successfully against that conviction and there was a re-trial in the District Court when she was convicted again. This is therefore a second appeal.

[3] This is an unusual “obstruction of a public way” case in that the public way at issue is very out of the way and apparently used by very few people. This is really a neighbours-at-war situation. The matter is further compounded by the fact that Mrs Langford is self-represented.

Background

[4] The case concerns a paper road, Browns Road. Some of the paper road is metalled and some is or was unformed. It runs between Mrs Langford’s land and that of her neighbour, the Lees. A Mr Hunkin who also owns land nearby has been involved in carrying out work on or in connection with the Lees’ property, including metalling of the paper road, cutting trees abutting the paper road for purposes of the Lees’ metalling job and fencing. Mrs Langford’s father originally owned a block of land abutting the paper road. He subdivided it into three lots. Mrs Langford lives on Lot 1. She also owns Lot 2 and Lot 3 is now the Lees’ property. Mrs Langford says she has always paid for the upkeep of the paper road or part of it, it seems not out of any obligation to do so.

[5] Mrs Langford has lived on the paper road for many years. Mr Hunkin bought his property in about 1986.

[6] There is a dispute between Mrs Langford and Mr Hunkin which seems to have started in about January 2012 when Mr Hunkin planted willow trees which Mrs Langford considered were on her property.

[7] Without going further into the pros and cons of what has happened historically, which is not of great relevance, the relevant “obstruction” events occurred on 30 May 2013 and 8 June 2013. On the morning of 30 May 2013, Mrs Langford was said to have obstructed Mr Hunkin’s way on the paper road for a considerable period of time. The police were called and Mrs Langford was allegedly given three warnings – one by the officer in charge, Constable Richards and two by a Sergeant Wilkinson-Smith who was with Constable Richards at the time. These warnings were all oral.

[8] In the afternoon of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Langford v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NZHC 2424
Decision Date: 8 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mrs Langford was convicted of obstructing a public way under s 22 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 and appeals that conviction. The dispute between Mrs Langford and her neighbour, Mr Hunkin, has a long history. The two occasions of obstruction were on 30 May 2013 and 8 June 2013 on Browns Road, a paper road running between Mrs Langford's property and that of her neighbour, the Lees. Mrs Langford was warned on three occasions on 30 May 2013 and subsequently obstructed the road on the same day and again on 8 June 2013. The District Court judge found that Mrs Langford had obstructed the road and did not have a reasonable excuse for doing so. The issue on appeal was whether the District Court judge was correct to find that there had been a warning to desist. The High Court found that there had not been a sufficient warning. The conviction was quashed and the matter was remitted to the District Court.

Mrs Langford submits that this is a civil matter and not criminal. She also submits that she did not have sufficient time to prepare her defence, that the evidence did not meet the elements of s 22, and that the "boundary evidence" was inadmissible. The court was concerned only with whether the evidence met the elements of s 22. The court found that there had not been a sufficient warning. A warning under s 22 should be clear, and in this case, in the context of a long-standing private dispute between neighbours, it should have been particularly clear. There was only one warning and it was not sufficiently clear. The warning needed to be clear as to what had occurred, i.e. an obstruction of a public way, and the consequences of any repeat obstruction. The court set aside the conviction.

Mrs Langford has not behaved appropriately and must ensure that no action of hers constitutes an obstruction of a public way. The court commended the prosecutor for handling the case in a fair and professional manner.

Orders