Methven v Police - [2012] NZHC 625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-443-000006 [2012] NZHC 625

BETWEEN STUART SIMON BRYCE METHVEN Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 2 April 2012

Counsel: J C Hannam for Appellant
J M Marinovich for Respondent

Judgment: 2 April 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] The appellant appeals:

(1)a decision of the District Court in which the District Court Judge declined the appellant’s application for leave to vacate his earlier pleas of guilty to two charges of burglary; and

(2) the sentence of two years and ten months’ imprisonment imposed

upon the appellant on the two burglary charges.

Background

[2] Two burglaries were committed in New Plymouth in October 2011. The first burglary was committed at a residential address in the early afternoon. Items taken
included I-pods, a laptop, a mobile phone, computer games, jewellery and a Rolex

METHVEN V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC NWP CRI-2012-443-000006 [2 April 2012]

watch. The value of the items taken exceeded $21,000. The second burglary occurred approximately three weeks later. On this occasion a residential property that was under construction was broken into. Some minor damage was done. Nothing was taken from this house.

[3] The appellant was arrested on 27 October 2011. When he was searched the appellant was found to be wearing the Rolex watch which had been stolen during the first burglary. When the appellant was arrested he was wearing a pair of shoes, the tread pattern of which coincided with the shoe tread patterns at the point of entry of the home which was the subject of the second burglary.

[4] The appellant was initially charged with receiving stolen property (the Rolex watch). He provided instructions to his then lawyer to plead guilty to that charge. However, before the appellant could pursue that course of action the police withdrew the receiving charge and laid the two burglary charges. Pleas of not guilty were entered to the two burglary charges on 15 December 2011 and the case was remanded for a status hearing scheduled for 25 January 2012 in the New Plymouth District Court.

[5] Before the status hearing took place, the appellant’s then lawyer visited him at New Plymouth prison. The appellant’s lawyer made this visit in response to indications from the appellant that he wanted to plead guilty to the two burglary charges. In an affidavit sworn on 3 February 2012 the lawyer said:

I did attend upon [the appellant] at New Plymouth Prison on 10 January. I discussed with him the fact that the consequences of pleading guilty were that he would be sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. I also discussed with him the fact that he continued to maintain his innocence but that he wished to plead guilty as he would rather have been held as a sentenced prisoner as opposed to on remand.

[6] After receiving this advice the appellant instructed his lawyer that he wished to enter guilty pleas to the two charges of burglary. Those instructions were…

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 [2012] NZHC 625
Case: [2012] NZHC 625
Decision Date: 2 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered an appeal by Stuart Methven against a decision of the New Plymouth District Court which had declined his application to vacate his earlier pleas of guilty to two charges of burglary, and the subsequent sentence imposed. The appellant argued that he had been pressured into pleading guilty by his desire to avoid serving time in prison on remand and that he had a credible defence which should have been considered. The central issue before the Court was whether the appellant's guilty pleas were rational and informed, whether he had received competent legal advice, and whether he had a viable defence that should have led to the vacating of his guilty pleas.

The Court found that the appellant was not suffering from any disability that would affect his decision-making capacity and that he had received competent and correct legal advice. However, the Court was concerned that the District Court Judge had essentially conducted a trial to determine the appellant's guilt when assessing the application to vacate the guilty pleas. The Court noted that it is not for the judge deciding the application to vacate a guilty plea to determine the applicant’s guilt; rather, the proposed defence must be reasonably credible, and whether that defence succeeds is for another court to determine. The Court concluded that the District Court Judge had misdirected himself on the approach he was required to take.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the decision of the District Court Judge to refuse his application to vacate his guilty pleas to the two charges of burglary. The High Court found that the interests of justice required that the application to vacate the guilty pleas should be allowed.

Orders