P v Police HC Tauranga CRI-2008-470-34
[2009] NZHC 1598
•27 March 2009
This case has been anonymized
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY
CRI-2008-470-34
P
Appellant
v
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing: 25 March 2009
(Heard at ROTORUA)
Appearances: Mr P in person
Ms C H Harold for Crown
Judgment: 27 March 2009 at 10.30 am
JUDGMENT OF LANG J
[on appeal against conviction and sentence]
This judgment was delivered by me on 27 March 2009 at 10.30 am, pursuant to Rule
11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, TaurangaCopy to:
Mr P , Taupö
P V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC TAU CRI-2008-470-34 27 March 2009
[1] Mr P faced charges in the District Court of refusing to accompany a police officer, failing to provide details and refusing to provide a specimen of his blood. He entered pleas of not guilty to all charges and they were heard by His Honour Judge Bidois over three days between December 2007 and June 2008.
[2] At the commencement of the third day of the hearing Mr P engaged the Judge in discussions regarding the sentence that the Judge was likely to impose in the event that Mr P was convicted. The Judge then gave a sentence indication and gave Mr P the opportunity to enter guilty pleas to the charges of refusing to accompany a police officer and failing to provide a specimen of his blood. The prosecution confirmed that, if he entered pleas of guilty to those charges, the prosecution would not offer any further evidence on the remaining charge of refusing to provide details.
[3] At the conclusion of the discussion Mr P duly entered pleas of guilty. The prosecution offered no evidence on the charge of failing to provide details and it was dismissed.
[4] The Judge then remanded Mr P to 15 September 2008 for sentencing. On that date the Judge convicted Mr P and fined him $600 together with costs on the charge of failing to provide a blood specimen. He also disqualified him for a period of four months, rather than the mandatory minimum period of six months, on that charge. He convicted and discharged Mr P on the charge of refusing to accompany an enforcement officer.
[5] Mr P now appeals to this Court against his conviction. He says that the record of the hearing in the District Court is wrong and that he did not intend to enter pleas of guilty to the charges. Rather, he intended only to enter pleas of guilty “to the facts”.
Should evidence be called on the appeal?
[6] The transcript of the hearing in the District Court records the exchanges that occurred between the Judge and Mr P . If the transcript is correct, Mr
P clearly entered pleas of guilty to the charges of refusing to provide a blood specimen and failing to accompany an enforcement officer. Mr P contends, however, that the transcript is incorrect. He sought leave during the hearing of the appeal to call oral evidence from a witness who was present at the defended hearing and who could confirm what actually occurred during the hearing. I declined that application and indicated that I proposed to treat the transcript as being a reliable and accurate record of the proceeding.
[7] I took this stance because there is nothing in the transcript that is untoward or would suggest in any way that it is an incorrect record of what transpired during the hearing in the District Court.
[8] More importantly, Mr P filed a “Notice in Mitigation”, together with other documents in mitigation prior to the hearing on 15 September 2008. I am satisfied that he took that step because he knew that he had pleaded guilty to the charges and that he would not have filed those documents unless he knew that he was to be sentenced in relation to the two charges to which he had pleaded guilty. I was therefore of the view that it would be a waste of the Court’s time and resources to hear evidence regarding the accuracy of the transcript.
[9] Once I had made my ruling in relation to this issue, Mr P did not advance any further submissions.
[10] For the sake of completeness, however, I propose to briefly discuss the other grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal that Mr P has filed.
Other issues
[11] The notice of appeal contains the following grounds of appeal:
- Breaches of natural justice
- Ruling made contrary to that of a prior Arbitral ruling made with
High Court Jurisdiction
- Want of Disclosure
- Want of Procedure including Assault by Police
- Want of joinder between the claims and the alleged accused
-Failure to provide witnesses and true, correct, certain and not mis- leading evidence – by prosecution
- Failure to correctly construe Acts – (under Summary Jurisdiction)
- And a number of other points – T.B.A.
-Actions contrary to NZ Bill of Rights & Other Rights of Applicant and contrary to Applicants Claim of Rights
[12] It is difficult to know exactly what many of the grounds of appeal relate to. I am satisfied, however, from perusing the transcript of the proceeding in the District Court that Mr P had every opportunity to challenge any aspect of the prosecution case that he wished to challenge during the lengthy hearing in that Court. Moreover, the Judge gave him considerable leeway in doing so.
[13] In addition, the exchange between the Judge and Mr P on the final day of the hearing makes it clear that the Judge was bending over backwards to ensure that Mr P was fully aware of the consequences that would follow in the event that he entered pleas of guilty to the two more serious charges. I do not consider that there are any grounds for Mr P to complain about the manner in which the Judge allowed the hearing in the District Court to be conducted.
Result
[14] All of Mr P ’s claims have the hallmark of “a professional litigant”. That impression is confirmed by the manner in which he conducted the hearing in the District Court. I find that none of his grounds of appeal have been made out and the appeal against conviction is accordingly dismissed.
Lang J
0
0
1