Lawson v Police - [2013] NZHC 3139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2013-443-022 [2013] NZHC 3139

SONJA MARIE LAWSON

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 25 September 2013

Counsel: R J Leith for Appellant
J Woodcock for Crown

Judgment: 27 November 2013

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

Introduction

[1] Ms Lawson was charged with three counts of using a telephone device for the purpose of annoying a person and with the intention of offending the recipient. These charges arose because Ms Lawson sent facsimiles to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), C&M Legal (the Crown Solicitors in New Plymouth) and Laser Electrical (a Taranaki whiteware firm). These facsimiles were abusive in nature and derogatory in content.

[2] Ms Lawson was convicted following a defended hearing in the District Court at Hawera. Ms Lawson appealed her convictions but it transpired that neither the notes of evidence nor the learned Judge’s oral reasons for her decision had been properly recorded. As a result Heath J allowed the appeal and directed that all three
charges be remitted to the District Court for rehearing.1 The matter was reheard in

1 Lawson v New Zealand Police [2012] NZHC 3571.

LAWSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 3139 [27 November 2013]

the District Court at Hawera before Judge Ross. Ms Lawson was again convicted.2

She was sentenced by way of an order to come up if called upon within 12 months and to pay witness expenses and court costs.3

The facts

[3] The first complainant was Roger Wells, an employee of MSD. Between 2010 and 2012, WINZ (an agency within MSD) investigated and prosecuted Ms Lawson. During that time Ms Lawson began sending lengthy facsimiles to the Remote Client Unit of WINZ. The facsimiles contained what can only be described as abusive and derogatory remarks. During a three week period in April 2012, Ms Lawson sent them on a regular basis.

[4] On 3 April 2012, Ms Lawson sent the same four-page facsimile nine times over 35 minutes. Mr Wells believed some of the facsimiles were offensive because of the derogatory language used to refer to himself and others. The facsimiles also contained accusations about himself and others. The facsimiles are addressed to the Remote Client Unit, but Mr Wells is explicitly referred to in the facsimiles along with a number of others. These facts gave rise to one charge of using a telephone device for the purpose of annoying a person with the intention of offending the recipient.

[5] The second complainant was the practise manager at C&M Legal, a Thomas Foggerty. C&M Legal represented WINZ (or MSD) in the prosecution. That prosecution related to late November and December 2011 when MSD began to receive facsimiles from Ms Lawson. These were directed at a former MSD employee, James Gurnick. The messages were often in excess of 10 pages. Sometimes the facsimiles related to the WINZ matter but they also related to various other organisations.

[6] Ms Lawson also sent C&M Legal a message on 30 April 2012 which…

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 Lawson 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: [2013] NZHC 3139
Decision Date: 27 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sonja Marie Lawson appealed against her conviction and sentence for using a telephone device for the purpose of annoying a person with the intention of offending the recipient, as charged under s 112(2) of the Telecommunications Act 2001. The High Court found that the District Court was correct to convict Ms Lawson of three charges relating to her sending of abusive facsimiles to three different organisations: the Ministry of Social Development, C&M Legal, and Laser Electrical. The Court held that the facsimiles were sent with the intention to annoy, disturb, and irritate the recipients, and that they were wanton and malicious in nature. The Court also found that the intention to offend the recipients was present in each of the communications. However, the Court held that the sentence of requiring Ms Lawson to come up for sentence if called upon was manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case, given the potential for further prosecution by the Ministry of Social Development. The sentence was set aside and Ms Lawson was convicted and discharged accordingly.

Orders