AThe appeal against conviction and sentence is allowed.
BThe appellant’s conviction is set aside and her sentence quashed. An order is made discharging the appellant without conviction.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Mander J)

Louise Meijler pleaded guilty to a representative charge of using forged documents and was sentenced to nine months’ supervision.[1] Ms Meijler’s application to be discharged without conviction was declined by Judge Sinclair in the District Court at Auckland,[2] and her appeal against that decision dismissed by Downs J in the High Court.[3] She was subsequently granted leave to appeal to this Court on the question of whether the High Court Judge erred in dismissing her appeal from the decision not to discharge her without conviction.[4]

Background

[1]Crimes Act 1961, s 257(1)(b); and Police v Meijler [2020] NZDC 27393.

[2]Police v Meijler [2020] NZDC 18214.

[3]Meijler v Police [2020] NZHC 3167.

[4]Meijler v R [2021] NZCA 305.

In July 2018, Ms Meijler’s doctor provided her with two prescriptions. These included a script for Zopiclone, which is a sleeping pill she was prescribed to control her anxiety and insomnia.[5] She photocopied the scripts and between 13 July and 1 August 2018 presented them to four different pharmacies in order to obtain more sleeping pills than her doctor had prescribed. On each occasion the medication was dispensed. However, a further attempt to use the forged prescription resulted in an alert being triggered and Ms Meijler’s subsequent arrest.
[5]The other prescription was for a topical antibiotic ointment for a skin condition called Bactroban.
At the time Ms Meijler entered her guilty plea, Judge Fitzgerald indicated he would discharge her without conviction if she completed a 10-week Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS) programme and did not commit any further offences. There was a considerable period of delay, which we will shortly review, but Ms Meijler did not complete the 10-week programme. As a result, when she next appeared before Judge Fitzgerald over a year later, perhaps unsurprisingly, he recorded that the sentence indication was “spent”.
Ms Meijler persevered with her application to be discharged without conviction when she appeared for sentence before Judge Sinclair. The Judge categorised the seriousness of the offending as moderate and, in the absence of Ms Meijler having any specific employment, she was not satisfied the consequences of conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.[6] On appeal to the High Court, Downs J recalibrated the seriousness of the offending as being low to moderate but did not consider the direct and indirect consequences of the conviction were out of all proportion to…

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 Meijler v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Meijler v The Queen [2021] NZCA 472
Case: [2021] NZCA 472
Decision Date: 17 September 2021 at 9 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Meijler v The Queen, the appellant, Louise Meijler, appealed against her conviction and sentence for using forged documents. Meijler pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months' supervision. The District Court declined her application to be discharged without conviction, a decision that was upheld by the High Court. The appeal to the Court of Appeal focused on whether the High Court erred in dismissing her appeal from the decision not to discharge her without conviction.

The legal issues revolved around the assessment of the seriousness of the offending and the consequences of conviction for Meijler. The Court had to determine whether the consequences of conviction were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending, which would warrant a discharge without conviction. The appeal court had to review the reasoning of the High Court in relation to the mitigating factors of Meijler's addiction and her efforts at rehabilitation, as well as the potential consequences of a conviction on her future employment prospects.

The Court of Appeal found that the High Court had erred in its assessment of the seriousness of Meijler's offending. The Court recognised Meijler's addiction to Zopiclone as a significant mitigating factor, which should have led to a lower assessment of the gravity of the offending. The Court found that Meijler had made substantial progress in overcoming her addiction and managing her dependency, which was not adequately reflected in the High Court's judgment. The Court also found that the consequences of a conviction for Meijler were significant, as the stigma of dishonesty could severely impact her future employment prospects, especially given her limited employment choices and lack of specific job plans. The Court concluded that the consequences of conviction were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending, and therefore, Meijler should be discharged without conviction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against conviction and sentence, set aside Meijler's conviction, quashed her sentence, and ordered her discharge without conviction.

Orders