Mete v Police

[2023] NZHC 138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-404-000288

[2023] NZHC 138

BETWEEN

JAGA KARA KARANA HIKURANGI METE
Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:

7 November 2022 and 25 January 2023

Counsel:

AZ Heyns for Appellant

WN Fotherby and CSA Fleury for Respondent

Judgment:

9 February 2023

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 10.30 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland. AZ Heyns, Kaukapakapa.

METE v POLICE [2023] NZHC 138 [9 February 2023]

Convictions quashed by consent

[1]    On 23 May 2022, Jaga Mete entered guilty pleas to two charges: possession of cannabis for the purpose of supply; and being unlawfully in a building. The Judge asked Mr Mete’s lawyer, Mr Heyns, if he could enter convictions. Mr Heyns said yes. So, convictions were entered by the Judge.

[2]    Mr Heyns later appreciated there were grounds for arguing Mr Mete should be discharged without conviction. However, by then of course, convictions had been entered. Consequently, Mr Mete could not argue he should have been discharged without conviction, as he might otherwise have done.

[3]    The sequence explains the appeal, which is against conviction, on the basis justice has miscarried through counsel error.

[4]    Mr Mete has waived privilege. The respondent has inspected Mr Heyns’ file. The respondent acknowledges the appeal should be allowed given Mr Heyns’ error: no searching inquiry was made of Mr Mete whether there was a basis for seeking a discharge without conviction before Mr Heyns told the Judge convictions could be entered. Mr Heyns and Mr Mete had “a cursory discussion” about the topic only, not more.

[5]    I accept the respondent’s concession. It is responsible. Justice has miscarried through error on the part of Mr Heyns.

[6]    This conclusion says nothing about whether Mr Mete should be discharged without conviction if he again pleads guilty or is found guilty. It holds only there was material error in relation to the entry of guilty pleas.

[7]    This leaves one thing. Mr Heyns continues to act for Mr Mete. Ordinarily, counsel may not also be a witness. Very good reasons exist for this rule. The respondent took no objection, however, provided Mr Mete waived privilege, and it was able to inspect Mr Heyns’ file. As observed, both have happened. Given the respondent’s concession the appeal should be allowed, I refrain from requiring other counsel to act.

Result

[8]The convictions are quashed. The charges are to continue in the District Court.

……………………………..

Downs J