Page v Police - [2020] NZHC 217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2019-463-104

[2020] NZHC 217

BETWEEN
BENJAMIN PAGE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 3 February 2020

Appearances:

The Appellant in person

G Banuelos for the Respondent

Judgment:

20 February 2020

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 February 2020 at 4 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

PAGE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 217 [20 February 2020]

[1] Following a Judge alone trial in the District Court at Rotorua the appellant, Benjamin Page, was convicted by Judge Hollister-Jones1 on charges of wilful damage2 and reckless driving relating to an incident that occurred on 23 May 2019.3

[2] On those charges, together with further charges of obstructing the Police,4 disorderly behaviour5 and threatening behaviour6 to which he had pleaded guilty, Mr Page was sentenced by Judge Hollister-Jones to two months community detention, 12 months supervision, and was disqualified from driving for 12 months.7

[3] Mr Page appeals against his convictions from the Judge alone trial and his overall sentence. With regard to the convictions Mr Page seeks leave to call additional witnesses to confirm his view of the incident, and submits that the sentence was simply excessive, particularly the disqualification.

The 23 May 2019 offending

[4] The oral judgment of Judge Hollister-Jones records that on 23 May 2019, Mr Page was driving on Hilcrest Avenue, Rotorua. A van, which had been following Mr Page, passed him when he pulled over to the side of the road. The occupants of the van had noted that Mr Page appeared to be driving erratically and when he stopped his car the occupants of the van turned the van around and stopped to see if Mr Page was all right. The evidence of the occupants was that when they stopped the van Mr Page was acting aggressively and in particular had taken his shirt off, and that he approached the passenger window of the van and said that he wanted to fight the two men in the van.

1      Police v Page [2019] NZDC 25350.
2      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(a). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $4,500 and the court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 6 months or more.
4      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 23(a). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
5      Section 4(1)(a). Liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000.
6      Section 21(1)(a). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
7      Police v Page [2019] NZDC 23176.

[5] Thinking Mr Page was on drugs one of the occupants turned the van around, and the other, Mr Timoti, then got out of the van to take Mr Page’s keys from him. As he attempted…

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 Page v Police

Details

AGLC: Page v Police [2020] NZHC 217
Case: [2020] NZHC 217
Decision Date: 20 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Page v Police was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry. The appellant, Benjamin Page, appealed his conviction and sentence from a District Court trial. The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant was entitled to call additional witnesses to support his version of events, and whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was excessive. The court considered the appellant's reasons for not calling the proposed witnesses at trial and concluded that the additional evidence was not fresh, cogent, or likely to have affected the outcome of the trial. The court further found that the District Court judge had not erred in assessing the evidence, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

The court found that the appellant's proposed witnesses could have been called at trial, and that there was no reason for the appellant not to have done so. The court noted that the appellant had not sought to contact the proposed witnesses since the trial and had not provided any information as to what they may have seen. The court found that the additional evidence was not fresh or cogent, and that there was no real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected by the absence of the proposed witnesses. The court further found that the District Court judge had not erred in preferring the evidence of the occupants of the van and an independent witness over that of the appellant. The court therefore dismissed the appeal against conviction.

The court considered the appellant's submission that the sentence was excessive and found that the District Court judge had shown considerable care and sensitivity in imposing the sentence. The court noted that the sentence was within the range that could properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles and that the primary aim of the sentence was to ensure that the appellant realised the seriousness of his actions and took his medication in the future. The court further found that the imposition of community detention and the disqualification from driving were appropriate. The court therefore dismissed the appeal against sentence.

Orders