Methven v Police - [2019] NZHC 357

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2019-443-1

[2019] NZHC 357

BETWEEN
STUART METHVEN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 5 March 2019

Appearances:

J C Hannam for the Appellant G N Milne for the Respondent

Judgment:

6 March 2019

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1] Mr Methven appeals a decision of Judge Harrison delivered in the District Court at New Plymouth on 26 July 2018, in which the Judge declined Mr Methven’s application to vacate his guilty plea in relation to one charge of contravening a protection order and one charge of failing to supply identifying particulars to Police.1

[2] Mr Methven appeals his conviction on the grounds that first, there is new evidence, namely medical records, which indicate he was in an “unfit state of mind” when he entered his plea on 26 July 2018. Second, the District Court erred by giving insufficient weight to the availability of an arguable defence to the charge.

1 Police v Methven [2019] NZDC 1340; Domestic Violence Act 1995, s 19(2)(d), s 49(1)(b) and s 49(3), maximum penalty 3 years’ imprisonment; and Policing Act 2008, s 32(4), maximum penalty 6 months’ imprisonment or $5,000 fine.

METHVEN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 357 [6 March 2019]

Factual background

[3] On 25 July 2017 a final protection order was issued in the New Plymouth District Court in relation to Mr Methven’s prior dealings with Ms A. Police sent Mr Methven a letter on 1 June 2018 stating Mr Methven was no longer allowed at the Ms A’s address and their relationship was over. The letter also explained the consequences of breaching the letter and the protection order.

[4] At approximately 8.20 pm on 7 June 2018 Mr Methven entered Ms A’s address and knocked on the front door. She stood on the other side of the door. Mr Methven asked to come into the house. She refused to allow entry and told Mr Methven to leave. Mr Methven stayed on the property for around 15 minutes, entering into the garage and moving around the front of the property. During this period Ms A repeatedly told Mr Methven to leave. She told Mr Methven she had called the Police and only then did he finally leave the address.

[5] The following day Police arrested Mr Methven for breaching the protection order. He admitted to being at Ms A’s address and explained that she had invited him to the address to collect his clothing the previous day.

[6] Mr Methven was charged with contravening a protection order. Mr Methven sought a sentencing indication. On 26 July 2018 Judge Harrison indicated a sentence of sentence of 15 and a half months’ imprisonment if Mr Methven pleaded guilty to both charges. As to suitability for home detention, “that remains to be seen but my view at the moment is that this man is not a candidate”.2 Mr Methven entered his guilty pleas following the sentencing indication.

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] NZHC 357
Case: [2019] NZHC 357
Decision Date: 6 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stuart Methven appealed against his conviction in the New Plymouth District Court, seeking to vacate his guilty plea on charges of contravening a protection order and failing to supply identifying particulars to the Police. Methven argued that there was new evidence indicating he was in an unfit state of mind when he entered his plea and that the District Court did not adequately consider the availability of an arguable defence. The appeal hinged on whether the convictions were unsafe or if a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The Court of Appeal had previously established that a later retraction of a guilty plea is only permitted under very rare circumstances, and mere regret is not enough to impugn the plea.

The High Court found that the medical records provided by Methven, which indicated he was experiencing thoughts of self-harm and depression, did not demonstrate that he was unfit to enter a guilty plea. The Court held that more powerful evidence would be required to show that Methven was not fully able to appreciate the significance of the guilty plea. Additionally, the Court was not persuaded that Methven had a tenable defence to the charge of contravening the protection order. The Court found that Methven remained on the property after being asked to leave, and there was no credible evidence to suggest that he did not hear the protected person's requests for him to leave.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions remained in place. The Court found that Methven had been adequately represented by counsel, had entered his guilty pleas after obtaining legal advice, and had ample opportunity to confirm his position during the hearing. The Court also found that the proposed defence of being invited onto the property was not a valid defence to the charge of contravening a protection order.

Orders