Legal Research
Cases
Larsen v Police

Larsen v Police

Case [2020] NZHC 2520 25 September 2020

Criminal Liability

Fraud

Perjury

Driving While Forbidden

Assault on a Police Officer

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2020-485-69

[2020] NZHC 2520

BETWEEN
SCOTT WILLIAM LARSEN

Appellant

AND

THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 22 September 2020

Counsel:

Mr Larsen self-represented with two support persons D P Neild for the respondent

Judgment:

25 September 2020

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] The “living sovereign man scott-william of the house of larsen" appeals the conviction and sentence of Scott William Larsen (Mr Larsen) in respect of two criminal charges, on the grounds of fraud and perjury.

[2] On 26 June 2020,1 Mr Larsen was found guilty and was convicted at a Judge- alone trial in the District Court of driving while forbidden2 and assaulting a police constable.3 The Judge-alone trial proceeded in the absence of Mr Larsen under s 124 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.4 Mr Bott appeared as Counsel appointed to assist the Court. On the same date, Mr Larsen was sentenced on the two convictions to come up for sentence if called upon and a six-month disqualification from driving.5

1      New Zealand Police v Larsen DC Masterton CRI-2020-035-000005, 26 June 2020.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 52(1)(c) – maximum penalty a $10,000 fine.
3      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 10 – maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or a $4,000 fine.
4      See Larsen, above n 1, at [2]; and New Zealand Police v Larsen DC Masterton CRI-2020-035- 000005, 26 June 2020 (Ruling of Judge Hobbs).
5      New Zealand Police v Larsen DC Masterton CRI-2020-035-000005, 26 June 2020 (Minute of Judge Hobbs), see addendum.

LARSEN v THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 2520 [25 September 2020]

[3] Mr Larsen appeals against both the convictions and sentence on the grounds of fraud and perjury.

Factual background

[4] The following is taken from the District Court’s summary of facts and Constable Chu and Constable Rikys’ Police statements.6

[5] On 4 April 2019, Constable Jones was on patrol in Featherston. He was speaking to Mr Larsen who was known to him. While conducting police checks Constable Jones established that Mr Larsen’s driver’s licence had expired on 22 January 2018. As a result, Constable Jones served on Mr Larsen a road safety directive, which prohibited Mr Larsen from operating a motor vehicle from 4 April 2019 until he obtained an appropriate driver’s licence. Constable Jones gave evidence in the District Court that he fully explained to Mr Larsen what might occur should he be caught driving without an appropriate licence, including the possibility of vehicle impoundment and a court appearance.

[6] On 30 December 2019, Constables Chu and Rikys were working together. They completed a vehicle stop on a motor vehicle. Constable Chu had established that the vehicle’s warrant of fitness had expired, and the driver gave his name as Scott William the House of Larsen. Constable Chu searched the owner of the vehicle registration on his mobile device, clicked on the photograph to enlarge it and showed it to the driver…

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 Larsen v Police

Details

AGLC: Larsen v Police [2020] NZHC 2520
Case: [2020] NZHC 2520
Decision Date: 25 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scott William Larsen appeals his conviction and sentence on two criminal charges, on the grounds of fraud and perjury. The High Court was required to determine whether the District Court erred in its assessment of the evidence to such an extent that a miscarriage of justice occurred and whether there was an error in the sentence imposed and a different sentence should be imposed. The High Court found that there had been no miscarriage of justice and that Mr Larsen's appeal against sentence was successful. The Court quashed the six-month disqualification from driving and dismissed the request for a transcript of the hearing. The Court upheld the conviction for assault on a police officer.

Orders