Methven v Police - [2019] NZCA 292

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA145/2019
[2019] NZCA 292

BETWEEN	STUART SIMON BRYCE METHVEN Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	Courtney, Venning and Dunningham JJ
Counsel:	J C Hannam for Applicant P D Marshall for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	8 July 2019 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave for a second appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

Stuart Methven pleaded guilty in the District Court at New Plymouth to one charge of contravening a protection order and one of failing to supply identifying particulars to the police. He applied unsuccessfully to vacate the guilty pleas.[1] He then appealed that decision unsuccessfully.[2] He now seeks leave for a second appeal.[3]
[1]Police v Methven [2019] NZDC 1340.
[2]Methven v Police [2019] NZHC 357.
[3]The application is determined on the papers in accordance with a Minute of Courtney J: Methven v Police CA145/2019, 30 May 2019.
The application falls to be determined under s 237(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 which provides that a Court must not grant leave for a second appeal unless satisfied that the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance or that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur unless the appeal is heard. This is a high threshold.[4]

Background

[4]McAllister v R [2014] NZCA 175, [2014] 2 NZLR 764 at [36].

In July 2017 Mr Methven was subject to a final protection order in respect of his former partner. On 1 June 2018 the police gave Mr Methven a letter advising him that he could no longer go to the complainant’s address and that their relationship was over. The following week Mr Methven went to the complainant’s address, knocked on the door and asked to come in. He claimed that he had done so in response to a text message from the complainant inviting him to retrieve his clothes from the address.

The complainant refused to let Mr Methven in. She told him to leave. He did not. He remained on the property for a further 15 minutes despite being told by the complainant to leave. He only left when the complainant finally called the police. This incident formed the basis for the charge of contravening a protection order.
When Mr Methven was arrested the following day he twice refused to allow the police to take his fingerprints or photograph. His refusals led to the charge of failing to supply identifying particulars to the police.

The guilty pleas and application to vacate the pleas

Mr Methven sought a sentencing indication in respect of both charges. Judge L Harrison gave a sentencing indication on 26 July 2018 of 15 and a half months’ imprisonment. Mr Methven entered guilty pleas following the sentence indication.
On 24 August 2018 Mr Methven applied to vacate the guilty pleas. The application was not heard until 18 January 2019. The matter…

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 Methven v Police

Details

AGLC: Methven v Police [2019] NZCA 292
Case: [2019] NZCA 292
Decision Date: 8 July 2019 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stuart Methven sought leave for a second appeal against his convictions for contravening a protection order and failing to supply identifying particulars to the police. The application was declined by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Mr Methven had pleaded guilty to the charges but later sought to vacate the pleas. His application to vacate was dismissed by the District Court and subsequently by the High Court. Methven then sought leave for a second appeal to the Court of Appeal. The court considered whether the application satisfied the threshold criteria for leave to appeal under section 237(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which requires the appeal to involve a matter of general or public importance or that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred unless the appeal is heard. The court found that neither criterion was met. Methven argued that he had new evidence of an impaired mental state at the time of the pleas and that he had a tenable defence based on being invited onto the property. The court found the evidence of an impaired mental state was not sufficient to demonstrate an inability to understand the charges or the significance of the pleas. The proposed defence of being invited onto the property was not tenable as the charge related to remaining on the property after being asked to leave. The court declined leave to appeal.

Orders