Lata v Police - [2020] NZHC 187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-475

[2020] NZHC 187

BETWEEN
SUMAN LATA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 17 February 2020

Counsel:

J Hickey for Appellant

S Rankin for Respondent

Judgment:

17 February 2020

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

LATA v POLICE [2020] NZHC 187 [17 February 2020]

[1] Ms Lata appeals the decision of the District Court to decline discharge without conviction on one charge of assault.

[2] Leave to appeal out of time was sought and not opposed. Leave is therefore granted.

Facts

[3] Ms Lata and the victim are whānau. Ms Lata is the victim’s aunty. After the Christchurch earthquakes, Ms Lata welcomed the victim and her son into her home where the victim stayed for some months. Their relationship then soured, and they lost contact with each other until relatively recently. It appears, however, that Ms Lata maintained a closer relationship with the victim’s son who, on 22 June 2018, asked Ms Lata to pick him up from the local mall. She did so, and he stayed with her for the night.

[4] A little after 3.00 pm the following day, the victim arrived at Ms Lata’s home. Ms Lata met the victim at the front door and told the victim to leave. The victim refused to leave. The victim repeatedly asked to see her son and Ms Lata refused to allow her to do so. The victim saw her son inside the house and tried to make her way into the house towards him. Ms Lata pushed the victim, causing the victim’s head to impact against the doorway. Ms Lata grabbed the complainant and slapped her about the face. The victim grabbed Ms Lata’s hair, in an attempt to defend herself, and they fought. The victim received scratches to her face.

District Court decision

[5] The District Court Judge had the benefit of a restorative justice report, victim impact statement and an affidavit of Ms Lata. From this material the Judge identified deep seated issues between Ms Lata and the victim and he saw those issues falling equally on both sides. He noted that Ms Lata did apologise and that the victim accepted her apology. He also noted that the victim is gutted by the whole situation and the fact her own family could have put her through this. The victim’s opposition to a discharge is also recorded.

[6] The Judge referred to Ms Lata’s background at some length. She was born in Fiji and she is currently employed as an environmental specialist for Synlait Milk, having previously worked for Life Technology. It is noted that for the last two to three years in her work with Life Technology, Ms Lata travelled overseas to manufacturing plants in India, the United States, Canada, Australia and Singapore every two or three months. Ms Lata’s current employment, however, does not require such travel.

[7]The Judge described the gravity of the…

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 Lata v Police

Details

AGLC: Lata v Police [2020] NZHC 187
Case: [2020] NZHC 187
Decision Date: 17 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Suman Lata appealed against the District Court's decision to decline discharge without conviction on one charge of assault. The appeal was heard on 17 February 2020, and the oral judgment was delivered by Whata J on the same day. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed. The primary legal issue in this appeal was whether the District Court Judge erred in declining to grant discharge without conviction under section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The Court had to apply a three-stage test to determine if a miscarriage of justice would occur if the Judge erred in applying the principles under section 107 of the Act.

The Court agreed with the District Court's assessment of the gravity of the offence, which was at the low to very low end of the spectrum for offending of this kind. However, the Court disagreed with the Judge's assessment of the consequences of conviction for Ms Lata. The Court considered that a conviction at this stage in Ms Lata's life was a black mark against her and that she was currently gainfully employed in an area which required a certain level of expertise and may, in the future, involve overseas travel. The Court also considered that a conviction for assault was likely to make travel to many countries difficult, and if Ms Lata needed to travel overseas for work purposes, the lengthy processing period was going to mean that she would be unlikely to obtain travel to work when she needed to. The Court found that the consequences of conviction were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence and to Ms Lata personally.

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed. Ms Lata was discharged without conviction. The protection order in favour of the victim remained in place.

Orders