Parker v Police - [2016] NZHC 2524

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-485-66 [2016] NZHC 2524

BETWEEN
TIMOTHY CALLUM PARKER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 18 October 2016

Counsel:

A Courtney and V E Thursby for Appellant
J D Slankard for Respondent

Judgment:

21 October 2016

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Parker pleaded guilty to a charge of male assaults female in relation to his partner. On 13 July 2016, Judge Mill refused to discharge him without conviction.1
Mr Parker appeals that decision.

[2] Since the conviction, Mr Parker has been dismissed from his employment because of his conviction. He seeks leave to provide evidence of this. This is not opposed. Leave is granted accordingly.

Facts

[3] The facts are as follows. Mr Parker and the victim had been in a relationship for three months, and had lived together as flatmates for two years. On 26 October
2015 at around 8 pm, Mr Parker and the victim were at home, sitting at the kitchen table together. He became angry with her and slapped her several times on both
sides of her face. He grabbed her hair and held her head for approximately

1 Police v Parker [2016] NZDC 13142.

PARKER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2524 [21 October 2016]

10 seconds. He then slapped her again on the side of the face. He released her hair, then pushed her head downwards holding it below the level of the table. He pushed her off the chair and she fell onto the ground. She sustained a black eye and several scratches to the face and neck.

District Court decision

[4] Judge Mill set out the test for discharge without conviction and also noted the courts’ reluctance to interfere with employment processes as to fit and proper character. He noted that Mr Parker is a qualified social worker but not registered. He was working in mental healthcare.

[5] As to the gravity of the offending, Judge Mill noted the early guilty plea and Mr Parker’s explanation of the pressure on him and his own mental health, which had worsened at the time. Mr Parker described it as a one-off incident, but the Judge noted the victim had said in her victim impact statement that it was not the first time she had been assaulted by him. Mr Parker had addressed his offending by enrolling in counselling and meeting with a social worker and clinical psychologist. The psychologist provided a letter which noted that Mr Parker suffers from schizophrenia and panic disorders. The Judge noted the psychologist’s advice that the offending was “possibly due to medication issues that were not his doing”. The Judge then found that it was a “relatively serious assault of its sort”, because it was sustained, took several forms, and resulted in some injury.

[6] As to consequences, the Judge noted that Mr Parker had been working for Pathways in the community mental health team for eight years. He was worried about being dismissed as a result of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Parker v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NZHC 2524
Decision Date: 21 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Timothy Callum Parker appealed against the decision of Judge Mill in the District Court, who refused to discharge him without conviction following Parker's guilty plea to assaulting his partner. Parker argued that the Judge overstated the gravity of the offending and failed to sufficiently weigh the serious consequences of a conviction, particularly his employment dismissal and potential difficulties in registering as a social worker. The Crown argued that the gravity of the assault was appropriately assessed and the consequences did not outweigh the seriousness of the offence.

The court examined the gravity of the offence, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors. It found that the assault was moderately serious, with sustained attacks resulting in physical injuries. The court also assessed the consequences of a conviction, particularly in relation to Parker's employment and potential social work registration. The court determined that the Social Workers Registration Board and prospective employers should be aware of the assault regardless of a conviction, due to the nature of social work and the vulnerability of their clients.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the gravity of the offence was appropriately assessed and the consequences of a conviction were not out of proportion to the seriousness of the assault. The appeal was dismissed, and Parker's conviction stood.

Orders