OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE
CRI-2025-483-000003 CRI-2025-483-000004
[2025] NZHC 1718
BETWEEN
P
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing:
14 May 2025; further submissions 28 May 2025
Counsel:
R N Zwaan for Appellant H Bullock for Respondent
Judgment:
26 June 2025
JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J
(Appeal against conviction)
A delayed challenge to convictions for breaches of a protection order
[1] P was convicted in 2022 and 2023 of breaching a protection order by contacting his estranged wife.1 He says that there are exceptional circumstances that justify the quashing of his 2022 conviction despite his guilty plea, and that he should be discharged without conviction for the 2023 offending. He applies for leave to appeal his convictions out of time.2
1 The first charge was filed under the Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(b) and 112(1)(a): maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment. The second charge was laid under the Family Violence Act, ss 90(a) and 112(1)(a): maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
2 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 231(2)–(3).
P v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1718 [26 June 2025]
[2] P seeks to be acquitted of the first charge. He contends that a miscarriage of justice occurred primarily because his lawyer failed to properly advise him that he had a strong defence to the charge. Alternatively, he submits that his lawyer should have applied for a discharge without conviction.
[3] P also seeks to be discharged without conviction in respect of the second charge. He contends that if he is acquitted on the first charge, a discharge without conviction is appropriate on the second charge. However, if he is not acquitted on the first charge, he submits that a discharge without conviction is appropriate in respect of both charges.
[4] For reasons that follow, I grant leave to appeal out of time but dismiss the appeal. I do not consider there are any exceptional circumstances that would justify allowing the appeal on the first charge. There was no counsel error that has led to a miscarriage of justice as P did not have a strong defence to the charge and made an informed decision to plead guilty. I am also not satisfied that a discharge without conviction should be granted in respect of either charge, as the consequences of conviction are not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.
Background
[5] P is a lawyer. At the time this appeal was heard, P was not working as a lawyer as the New Zealand Law Society was considering whether he should have his practising certificate renewed in light of his offending. Ms Zwaan, for P, has subsequently confirmed that P has now obtained a practising certificate and has tentative employment opportunities in Auckland, Wellington, Manukau, Palmerston North, and Tauranga that are dependent…
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 P v Police
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
P v Police [2025] NZHC 1718
Case
[2025] NZHC 1718
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
P, a lawyer, appeals against his convictions for breaches of a protection order, seeking to be acquitted of the first charge or discharged without conviction for both charges. The appeal was filed out of time. The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. The court found there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify allowing the appeal on the first charge as P did not have a strong defence to the charge and made an informed decision to plead guilty. The court also found that a discharge without conviction should not be granted in respect of either charge, as the consequences of conviction are not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The court assessed the gravity of the offending by reference to both the aggravating and mitigating features of the offending and P’s personal aggravating and mitigating features. The court also assessed the consequences of conviction, considering the direct and indirect consequences of conviction. The court found that the consequences of conviction on these charges are not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.