Minto v Police - [2013] NZHC 253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-404-000313 [2013] NZHC 253

BETWEEN JOHN BERNARD MINTO Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

CRI-2012-404-000257

AND BETWEEN HAGEN XAVIER ROBERTSON Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 5 February 2013

Counsel: Appellants in person
W Fotherby for Respondent

Judgment: 19 February 2013

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 3.30pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, DX CP24063, Auckland 1140. Email: william.fotherby@meredithconnell.co.nz

Copy to:
J B Minto, 4 Ethel Street, Morningside, Auckland. Email: johnminto@orcon.net.nz

MINTO V POLICE HC AK CRI-2012-404-000313 [19 February 2013]

Conviction for obstructing the Police

[1] On 17 April 2012, the appellants John Bernard Minto and Hagen Xavier

Robertson were part of a protest group objecting to the removal of a state house from

25 Silverton Avenue, Glen Innes. They were arrested and charged with obstructing a Constable acting in the execution of his duty. After a defended hearing in which Mr Minto gave evidence, they were convicted of the offence by Judge Perkins on
10 August 2012. They were ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within six months and to pay court costs of $132.89.

The detailed facts

[2] The appellants were part of a group of protesters who did not believe that the Government should be removing a number of state houses from Glen Innes. The house being moved was one of these. It was taken off its foundations and put on a trailer. Once removed from 25 Silverton Avenue, it was transported along the roadway by the trailer attached to a truck. The trailer to this vehicle had the ability to lift or lower the house so it could be transported over obstacles in the roadway. The protesters, including the appellants, were objecting to the removal and were gathered in the street in the way of the truck.

[3] Shortly after the house was removed from the property, the passage of the house was obstructed by a van parked on the side of the road. As the truck approached the van, it was lifted so it could pass over the top of the van. Halfway through this manoeuvre, when the house was halfway across the van, Mr Robertson jumped onto the van. The truck and the passage of the house paused with Mr Robertson standing on the roof. A Senior Sergeant Porter gave evidence that he told Mr Robertson to get down from the van and that Mr Robertson ignored him. Senior Sergeant Porter, who was assisted by a Constable Crawford, instructed Constable Crawford to arrest Mr Robertson. Constable Crawford proceeded to do so.

[4] Mr Robertson did not give evidence.

[5] The incident in relation to Mr Minto occurred a little later. The vehicle had moved down Silverton Avenue and then turned into Kotae Road. Mr Minto, together with five other people, was standing in front of the truck further down the road. The distance was…

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 Minto v Police

Details

AGLC: Minto v Police [2013] NZHC 253
Case: [2013] NZHC 253
Decision Date: 19 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellants John Bernard Minto and Hagen Xavier Robertson appealed against their convictions for obstructing a police officer in the execution of their duty. The appellants were part of a protest group objecting to the removal of a state house from 25 Silverton Avenue, Glen Innes. They were arrested and charged with obstructing a Constable acting in the execution of their duty. After a defended hearing, they were convicted by Judge Perkins on 10 August 2012. The appellants appealed against their convictions.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the elements of the charge were established and if the Police had the legal power to require the appellants to move. The court needed to consider the scope of police power and whether the appellants' actions were obstructing a public way contrary to section 22 of the Summary Offences Act 1981.

The court found that the elements of the charge were established, and the Police had the legal power to require the appellants to move. The court held that there was no reasonable excuse for Mr Robertson's actions as he obstructed reasonable use of the highway, and the Police were themselves obstructed by his defiance when they tried to get him to desist. The court also held that Mr Minto's presence in the street was an obstruction, as he was able to move of his own accord but chose not to do so. The court concluded that the decision of Judge Perkins was correct, and the appeals against conviction were dismissed.

In conclusion, the court dismissed both appellants' appeals against their convictions for obstructing a police officer in the execution of their duty. The court found that the Police had the legal power to require the appellants to move, and their actions were obstructing a public way contrary to section 22 of the Summary Offences Act 1981.

Orders