Lockett v Police - [2017] NZHC 88

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2016-488-000042

CRI-2016-488-000044 [2017] NZHC 88

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against conviction

BETWEEN

JAMIE BEATTIE LOCKETT Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:
12 December 2016

[Further evidence filed 27 January 2017]

Appearances:

J B Lockett (Self-represented Appellant) in Person
M B Smith for the Respondent

Judgment:

7 February 2017

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Edwards on 7 February 2017 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors: Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Whangarei

Copy To: J B Lockett, Opua

LOCKETT v POLICE [2017] NZHC 88 [7 February 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Lockett pleaded guilty to three charges of “speaks threateningly” and one charge of assault on 16 December 2014. Mr Lockett now appeals his convictions on the grounds he pleaded guilty “under duress”; he has a defence to the charges; and he has fresh evidence to present on appeal.

The offending

[2] Mr Lockett acts as an informal property manager for Mr Phillips, the owner of eight properties in English Bay, Opua.

[3] The assault and one of the “speaks threateningly” charges arises out of events on 27 August 2014. The complainant (Mr Helps) had visited the tenant of a property owned by Mr Phillips and had stayed the night. Mr Helps was still present at the address the next morning and was seated at the kitchen table.

[4] Mr Lockett and Mr Helps were known to each other. Mr Lockett was convicted of common assault against Mr Helps in May 2014. He was sentenced to come up for sentence if called upon for a period of six months. The subject offending was within that six month period.

[5] Mr Lockett arrived at the house and, without announcing himself, opened the ranch slider, pulled open the curtains, and entered the dwelling. He walked directly to Mr Helps and thrust a sheet of paper at him which purported to be a trespass notice. He then took hold of Mr Helps by the collar of his shirt and pulled him backwards. This forms the basis of the assault charge.

[6] Mr Helps got up and left the house. Mr Lockett followed him out on to the road. The summary of facts records Mr Lockett saying: “Get out of here, don’t come back. If you come back I’ll manhandle you. You won’t know what hit you”.

[7] Mr Lockett became aware that the police had been called to the property and got into an associate’s vehicle to leave. Mr Lockett was discovered in the boot of that car when it was subsequently stopped. Mr Lockett says that the reason he was

in the boot of the car was that he urgently needed to complete a job at the

Oyster Factory.

[8] The remaining charges relate to another victim, Mr Shepherd. Mr Shepherd had recently moved into one of the dwellings managed by Mr Lockett. One evening between 18…

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 Lockett v Police

Details

AGLC: Lockett v Police [2017] NZHC 88
Case: [2017] NZHC 88
Decision Date: 7 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Mr. Lockett appeals his convictions for multiple charges of speaking threateningly and assault, which he pleaded guilty to on 16 December 2014. He now claims that he entered his guilty pleas under duress, that he has a defence to the charges, and that he has fresh evidence to present on appeal. The court must consider these arguments to determine if a miscarriage of justice has occurred. The key legal issues the court had to decide were whether Mr. Lockett's guilty pleas were made under duress, whether he had a defence to the charges, and whether there was fresh evidence to support his appeal. The court found that Mr. Lockett was not under duress when he entered his guilty pleas, as he was properly advised by counsel and fully understood the consequences of his decision. Furthermore, the court found that Mr. Lockett's proposed defence under section 56(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 was unlikely to succeed, and there was no convincing evidence of fresh evidence that could lead to a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

In conclusion, the High Court of New Zealand dismissed Mr. Lockett's appeal against his convictions for speaking threateningly and assault. The court found that Mr. Lockett's guilty pleas were not made under duress, that he did not have a defence to the charges, and that there was no fresh evidence to support his appeal. The court granted an extension of time to bring the appeal but ultimately dismissed it. The convictions for speaking threateningly and assault remain in place.

Orders