Meek v Police

[2014] NZHC 628

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2014-485-9 [2014] NZHC 628

STUART JAMES MEEK Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	1 April 2014
Counsel:	Appellant in Person J A Eng for Respondent
Judgment:	1 April 2014

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1]      Mr Meek appeals a conviction for wilful damage.   Mr Meek had pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted and discharged.

[2]      It is necessary to provide some background.  Mr Meek was in Christchurch at the time of the earthquake.   It has affected him, and since that time he has been experiencing   mental   unwellness.      At   the   time   of   the   present   incident, December 2013, Mr Meek was mentally disturbed and at the same time dissatisfied with the care and treatment he was receiving.  Around this time on several occasions he self-harmed.

[3]      On the day in question Mr Meek called the Police and said he intended to commit suicide.   The police came.   He prevented their entrance, and cut himself. Eventually order was restored.   Mr Meek was arrested as he had threatened police

with a weapon.  The police contacted the Crisis Assistance Treatment Team (CATT)

MEEK v NZ POLICE [2014] NZHC 628 [1 April 2014]

as Mr Meek wanted to meet with them.  Familiar with his case, the CATT considered it unnecessary and counter-productive, and declined to attend.

[4]      Mr Meek was released and sent home.  He self-harmed again and was taken to A&E, whereupon he again asked to meet with the CATT.  This was again refused and the decision taken to discharge him.   Mr Meek was agitated and angry about this.  He misbehaved within the hospital and then on leaving the building punched a wall several times, causing a hole.   It is this damage that is the subject of the conviction.

[5]      All   this   occurred   on   2 December 2013.      In   January   Mr Meek   was compulsorily admitted for five days for assessment.  On February 11 he appeared to answer the charges against him.   It seems that for a period, including the day of sentencing, Mr Meek had legal representation.   Counsel had obtained considerable information which had been provided to the Court.   Mr Meek had also written a letter in apparent anticipation of a sentencing, but advises that he always intended to dispute  the  charge.     However,  before  the  case  was  called,  Mr Meek  had  a disagreement with his lawyer.  He says it was about wanting to defend the charge. By the time of appearance he was acting for himself.  In the interim he had left the Court, self-harmed, called the police and been collected and returned to the Court cells to await that appearance.

[6]      On the appeal Mr Meek (by way of submission rather than evidence) says he felt pressured to plead guilty.  He was in the cells.  He was told (he says by Court staff) that he had little time, and people were saying to plead and get it over with. This is what he did.

[7]      On appeal Mr Meek says:

(a)       he had a defence because he never intended to damage the wall.  He was trying to self harm;

(b)at the time of the incident he was mentally unwell and not responsible for his actions;

(c)      he felt pressured to plead guilty and did not have enough time to think about it;

(d)he was confused because of the argument on the day with his lawyer and mental health staff;

(e)     a conviction (his only one) is an unjust outcome given these circumstances.

Decision

[8]      This is effectively an application to withdraw a guilty plea although properly advanced as a conviction appeal as it arises after sentencing.  The respondent has had difficulties contesting the appeal.  No evidence has been filed and it has not always been clear what the appeal ground is.   Mr Eng properly referred the Court to the relevant authorities such as R v Merrilees.1   The appeal ground is a difficult one to establish given that the appellant has pleaded guilty.

[9]      That  said  I  am  satisfied  the  appeal  should  be  allowed.    I  have  more information now than was available to the District Court, and I do not consider I can be satisfied Mr Meek made an informed decision when pleading guilty.  Matters that influence me are:

(a)      the  fact  that  he  ended  up  without  legal  assistance  shortly  before pleading;

(b)the letter he wrote casts doubt in my mind about whether Mr Meek understood the process and effects of pleading guilty;

(c)      a  documented  history  of  mental  unwellness   right  through  the December to February period which similarly casts doubt on the quality of his decision making at the time.  The events on the day of sentencing were plainly traumatic for Mr Meek and this is reflected in

another episode of self-harming.

1      R v Merrilees [2009] NZCA 59.

[10]     Relevant to the issue of allowing the appeal is the fact that there is a possible defence to advance.  That is not to say whether it would or would not succeed, but given  Mr Meek’s  contemporaneous  history of  self-harming,  lack  of  intent  is  an available argument.

[11]   The appeal is accordingly allowed.   In the circumstances, and bearing particularly in mind Mr Meeks’ mental unwellness at the time and the fact that no penalty was imposed in relation to the conviction, I do not consider it necessary to remit the matter for rehearing.  Accordingly, the guilty plea having been entered in circumstances giving rise to a miscarriage, and a retrial being undesirable, pursuant to s 233 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, I set aside the conviction and direct an

acquittal be entered.

Simon France J

Solicitors:

Luke Cunningham & Clere, Crown Solicitors, Wellington