Manaia v Police

[2018] NZHC 64

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-404-436 [2018] NZHC 64

BETWEEN

WILLIAM MANAIA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	7 February 2018
Counsel:	Appellant in person K E Tuialii for Respondent
Judgment:	7 February 2018

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 February 2018 at 4:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent

MANAIA v POLICE [2018] NZHC 64 [7 February 2018]

Background

[1]      Dr Manaia is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Business and IT, Manukau Institute of Technology.  In March 2017, he decided to do something positive for the community in which he lives by applying to be a mentor for an organisation called Pillars.  This is an organisation that supports children with parents who are in prison. It has a great need for male Māori mentors.

[2]      Dr Manaia disclosed to Pillars that in 2013 he was convicted on a charge of careless driving causing injury.1   However, when Pillars checked his record, the entry on the computer record reads “careless or inconsiderate driving causing death or injury (on a road)”.

[3]      According to Dr Manaia, Pillars felt forced to decline his offer to be a mentor because the disclosure he had made did not fit the official record.  Dr Manaia put it:

Integrity is one of the key principles they must have in all their mentors and I

had mislead (sic) them.

[4]      In November 2017, Dr Manaia wrote a letter to the District Court at Manukau (which eventually found its way to this Court) asking for a “formal appeal of a conviction record for myself”.  Later in the letter he said this:

I have discussed this with my lawyer and she has instructed me to write to you in the first instance and request an urgent appeal of my conviction record so that the immediate problem is eliminated because it is impacting on my life. We are yet to decide how we will proceed with this matter but in the first instance I am making a formal request to appeal my conviction.

Discussion

[5]      The Court registry and the Crown have treated Dr Manaia’s correspondence as formal notice of an appeal against conviction and sentence on the basis that Dr Manaia might argue that he should have been discharged without conviction.   However, Dr Manaia would need leave to bring such an appeal because of the length of time that has passed since his conviction in 2013. In my view, it would be inappropriate to grant

leave since clearly there was no error in the decision made by the presiding Judge and

1      Police v Manaia DC Manukau CRI-2012-092-9863, 20 September 2013.

it is not the conviction to which Dr Manaia objects but the way in which it is recorded in the Ministry’s computer.

[6]      I note in this regard that Dr Manaia provided a copy of a report to him by his counsel after the sentencing.  This makes it clear that his focus at the sentencing was to avoid being disqualified from driving. This was achieved. Counsel in her report to Dr Manaia summarises the situation as follows:

In accordance with your instructions I advised the Judge that avoiding a disqualification from driving was your priority. Further your instructions were that a conviction for an offence of this nature was not going to result in the loss of your employment nor the ability to continue with your career.

[7]      The case against Dr Manaia was that he backed his vehicle down his driveway and collided with a passing pedestrian causing her injury.  Dr Manaia defended the charge on the basis that although that occurred, his driving was not careless.  The presiding  Judge  found  it  was  careless,  but  evidently  decided  that  Dr Manaia’s blameworthiness was low because, apart from the conviction, the only penalty was an order that he pay $500 reparation.

[8]      In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the entry of a conviction at the time the case was  before the  Judge  was  out  of all  proportion  to  the  identified consequences. Nor is that the case now. The consequence to which Dr Manaia objects arises from the way the conviction is recorded, not the conviction itself.

[9]      It seems to me that if the Ministry’s computer record was amended to describe his  conviction  as  being  simply  one  for  careless  driving  causing  injury,  then Dr Manaia’s complaint would be remedied.  I have said to Dr Manaia that I do not have the jurisdiction to direct the Ministry to change the record.  I have suggested to him that he write to the Ministry requesting the change and he is at liberty to enclose a copy of this Judgment to support his application.

[10]     I have further suggested to Dr Manaia that he might also provide a copy of this

Judgment to Pillars.  It might assist with his application to be a mentor.

Decision

[11]     In formal terms, insofar as Dr Manaia has applied for leave to appeal out of time, for the reasons given leave is denied.

Brewer J