Lawson v Police - [2018] NZHC 2842

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI 2018-443-25 [2018] NZHC 2842

BETWEEN
SONJA MAREE LAWSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 30 October 2018

Counsel:

N P Bourke for Appellant
S J Simpkin for Respondent

Judgment:

1 November 2018

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1] Ms Lawson appeals a conviction, entered following a guilty plea, for an offence under s 112(2)(a) of the Telecommunications Act 2001.1 Although represented by counsel Ms Lawson has filed documentation in support of other grounds counsel feels unable to advance.

Preliminary issue – recusal

[2] At the start of the hearing Mr Bourke advised that Ms Lawson had informed him that she objected to me presiding. The lateness of the advice meant he was unclear as to the reason. However, it seems that I have had involvement in some matter with
Ms Lawson in May of this year concerning which she had made a complaint.

1 New Zealand Police v Lawson [2018] NZDC 28762.

LAWSON v POLICE [2018] NZHC 2842 [1 November 2018]

[3] I cannot recall the May event and know of no complaint. The information provided afforded no basis on which I should decline to hear the appeal and accordingly I declined the application.

Background

[4] Ms Lawson has a long-standing grievance with the Minister of Social Development. As a consequence of past events, she has been trespassed from all Ministry premises. Ms Lawson is subject to restrictions in how she may communicate with the Ministry. She is required to ring a particular number and leave a message. It is said the Ministry will then respond. It is such a phone call by Ms Lawson that gave rise to the present charges.

[5] On 27 June 2018 Ms Lawson rang and left what can only be described as a profane and abusive message. I have listened to the recording and it is clear
Ms Lawson is upset. The call begins with Ms Lawson saying she wants to make a complaint. It appears that because of past dealings Ms Lawson insists on calls from the Ministry going to a dedicated phone number which is not her general phone. The complaint was that the Ministry had allegedly called the wrong number. It seems from the call that Ms Lawson believes this is deliberate, either to annoy her or to provide information but in a way, she may not receive. The Ministry person who allegedly made the call, MM, is abused in insulting and profane terms.

[6] A background issue is that it seems the Ministry has used made up names for its staff dealing with Ms Lawson, presumably as a safety measure. The later part of the call makes it plain Ms Lawson believes MM to be a made up name.

[7] After the complaint Ms Lawson identifies a list of items, such as a washing machine, she does not have and believes she is entitled to. She says what she wants…

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 Lawson v Police

Details

AGLC: Lawson v Police [2018] NZHC 2842
Case: [2018] NZHC 2842
Decision Date: 1 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sonja Maree Lawson appeals against her conviction for an offence under section 112(2)(a) of the Telecommunications Act 2001. The conviction arose from a call she made to the Ministry of Social Development, in which she left an abusive and profane message. Lawson was subject to restrictions on her communication with the Ministry, including having to leave messages on a dedicated phone line. The content of the message included complaints about the Ministry calling the wrong number and threats to shoot a Ministry employee. Lawson pleaded guilty to charges of speaking threateningly and misuse of a telephone, but the Court discharged her without conviction for the former charge. She now appeals the conviction for misuse of a telephone.

The Court was required to determine whether Lawson could be convicted under section 112(2)(a) of the Act, which requires a purpose of disturbing, annoying or irritating. The Court also had to consider whether there was a failure to disclose relevant information, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court concluded that the conviction should be quashed because the purpose of the call was not to disturb, annoy or irritate, but rather to complain and seek assistance. The Court found that the purpose of the call was to complain about the Ministry's actions, and the abusive language was a product of frustration rather than the purpose of the call.

The Court found that the conviction should be quashed because the evidence did not support the prosecution's case that the purpose of the call was to disturb, annoy or irritate. The Court noted that the call was made in anger to complain and demand assistance, and the tone and language was subsidiary to that. The Court also observed that the authorities could still act in relation to the call under section 112(1) of the Act, which deals with inappropriate language being spoken by the person using the phone.

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The Court declined an application for name suppression, noting that the statutory test for such an application was not met.

Orders