Maddigan v Police - [2021] NZHC 1035

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2020-425-000025

[2021] NZHC 1035

BETWEEN
FRASER WRIGHT MADDIGAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 15 October 2020

Appearances:

Appellant appears in person

R Donnelly for the Respondent

Judgment:

11 May 2021

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] Fraser Maddigan was charged by Police for breaching the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (CDEMA).1 The offence occurred on 2 April 2020 and the offence description is as follows:

While a state of emergency was in force, having been previously warned by a constable to abide by Government restrictions during the state of emergency, refused by travelling out of his living area, without reasonable excuse.

[2] On 2 April 2020 in the District Court at Invercargill, Mr Maddigan pleaded guilty to the charge. He was sentenced to a fine of $1,000 and ordered to pay court costs of $130.2 He appeals his conviction.

1 Specifically, with failing to comply with a direction given by a constable under ss 102 and 91 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002.
2 Police v Maddigan [2020] NZDC 5743.

MADDIGAN v POLICE [2021] NZHC 1035 [11 May 2021]

Summary of Facts

[3]I set this out in full:

INTRODUCTION

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic an epidemic notice was issued effective 25 March 2020 under s 8 of the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006.

New Zealand has been at COVID-19 Alert Level 4 – Eliminate, since 11:59 pm, 25 March 2020.

A state of national emergency was declared effective from 12:21pm Wednesday 25 April. This will last for 7 days until 12:21pm on Wednesday 1 April and may be extended.

CIRCUMSTANCES

The defendant Fraser Wright MADDIGAN’s home address is […]3 where he had been self-isolating with [his family].

On 30/03/2020 in the Queenstown area the defendant was spoken to by Constable JF7630 in relation to COVID-19 Self-Isolation and/or a L4 Lock- Down Breach.

The breach was treated as an education contact and COVID-19 ‘Lock Down’ requirements were explained/reiterated.

The defendant was told he had to leave town and return to his home address by the morning and warned of arrest.

On 31/03/2020 in the Te Anau area the defendant was spoken to by Constable SWF466 in relation to a COVID-19 Self-Isolation and/or a L4 Lock-Down Breach.

The breach was treated as an educational contact and COVID-19 ‘Lock Down’ requirements were explained/reiterated. The defendant was also directed multiple times to return to his home address immediately.

At about 9.30am on 01/04/2020 the defendant was seen driving towards Te Anau on SH94 the Te Anau Milford Highway.

The defendant was stopped and arrested in relation to the breaches.

DEFENDANT COMMENTS

In explanation the defendant stated he was having a break from home and self- isolating in his car in Fiordland, as well as doing some reconnaissance for his work in pest control.

3 In the District Court, the Judge suppressed details of that address for the benefit of the other occupants of…

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 Maddigan 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: [2021] NZHC 1035
Decision Date: 11 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fraser Wright Maddigan was convicted in the District Court of a charge of failing to comply with a direction given under s 91 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (CDEMA) following the declaration of a state of national emergency. He appeals his conviction to the High Court. The Court found that, by pleading guilty to the charge, Mr Maddigan accepted that the Police had lawfully directed him to return to his home in Christchurch and that he had refused to do so. The Court found there was no basis on which Mr Maddigan could suggest that the Police directions were unlawful. The Court found there was no miscarriage of justice in the conviction and sentence but that there was a fundamental error in the process leading to Mr Maddigan pleading guilty. Mr Maddigan was bailable as of right but was remanded in custody when it was wrongly thought he was not. The Court found that, but for that error, it was likely Mr Maddigan would not have pleaded guilty. The Court quashed the conviction and sentence and remitted the proceedings to the District Court for Mr Maddigan to appear again on the charge he faces and to decide again how he is going to plead. The Court ordered that Mr Maddigan be remanded on bail to appear at the District Court in Christchurch on 27 May 2021 at 10.00 am.

Orders