Mitchell v Police - [2012] NZHC 699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2011-419-000079 [2012] NZHC 699

YANENA-DIANNE MITCHELL
Appellant
v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 16 April 2012

Appearances: Appellant (Self-represented) in Person
Ms J M O'Sullivan for the Crown

Judgment: 16 April 2012

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

Solicitors: Almao Douch P O Box 19173 (DX GP20023) Hamilton 3244 for the
Respondent

Copy To: Y D Mitchell (Self-represented Appellant) P O Box 19 Whangaparaoa
North Shore 0943

MITCHELL v POLICE HC HAM CRI-2011-419-000079 [16 April 2012]

[1] The appellant, Ms Mitchell, filed a notice of appeal against her conviction and sentence in the District Court on a single charge of assault. She was convicted and sentenced to pay reparation of $750 at a rate of $10 per week and, further, to serve 60 hours’ community work. Ms Mitchell’s written submissions have been directed towards an appeal against conviction, and I have clarified with her today that the scope of her appeal is confined to an appeal against conviction. I do not propose, therefore, to deal with the appeal against sentence.

Facts

[2] The facts as presented by the prosecution at the defended hearing in the

District Court were as follows.

[3] On 22 April 2011, Ms Mitchell received a text message from the victim, Ms Hillier, requesting the use of a car to travel to work the following day. The car belongs to Janice Pearl, who is Ms Mitchell’s mother. There exists an arrangement between Ms Pearl (who lives on Waiheke Island) and Ms Hillier whereby Ms Hillier is permitted use of the car.

[4] On 23 April 2011 at 7.00 am, Ms Mitchell drove to Ms Hillier’s house in the car in question and banged loudly on the front door, yelling obscenities as she did so. Ms Mitchell’s boyfriend remained in the car in the front passenger seat. Ms Hillier got into the car, and Ms Mitchell drove back to her own address.

[5] During this journey, Ms Hillier was concerned at the speed at which Ms Mitchell was driving. Ms Hillier tapped Ms Mitchell on the shoulder a number of times and requested that she slow down. Ms Mitchell, in fact, sped up. All parties alighted from the car at Ms Mitchell’s home address, where a number of other people were gathered on the driveway. Ms Hillier told Ms Mitchell never again to come to her home and swear at her in the manner in which Ms Mitchell had. Ms Hillier then pushed her way past the people on the driveway and made her way back into the car.

[6] At this stage, Ms Mitchell grabbed Ms Hillier by the hair, pulled her backwards, spun her around, and forced her head downwards. Ms Hillier attempted

to grab Ms Mitchell’s shirt to prevent a fall, and Ms Mitchell bit Ms Hillier’s right wrist. While Ms Hillier was on the ground, Ms Mitchell pushed Ms Hillier’s face into the dirt. Ms Hillier then got up, got into the car, and…

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 Mitchell v Police

Details

AGLC: Mitchell v Police [2012] NZHC 699
Case: [2012] NZHC 699
Decision Date: 16 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Mitchell appealed against her conviction and sentence in the District Court on a single charge of assault. She was convicted and sentenced to pay reparation of $750 at a rate of $10 per week and, further, to serve 60 hours’ community work. Ms Mitchell's written submissions have been directed towards an appeal against conviction, and the court has clarified that the scope of her appeal is confined to an appeal against conviction. The court does not propose to deal with the appeal against sentence.

The legal issues before the court were whether Ms Mitchell's appeal against conviction was valid and whether the District Court Judge had made any errors in his assessment of the evidence. The court considered the evidence presented at the District Court and whether the Judge had correctly found all the elements of the offence proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered whether the District Court had erred in dismissing the jurisdictional challenge raised by Ms Mitchell based on Māori Sovereignty/Settlers’ Law arguments.

The court found that the District Court Judge had correctly assessed the evidence and found all the elements of the offence proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court also found that the District Court had correctly dismissed the jurisdictional challenge raised by Ms Mitchell based on Māori Sovereignty/Settlers’ Law arguments. The court concluded that the appeal against conviction must fail and was dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence, and the conviction and sentence of the District Court stands.

Orders