Pay v The King

[2025] NZHC 1043

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2018-096-003083

[2025] NZHC 1043

BETWEEN

WARREN LEONARD PAY

Applicant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing:

On the Papers

Appearances:

E A Hall for Applicant

E Ferrier and T Jenkin for Respondent

Judgment:

5 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[Remission of fines]

[1]                 Mr Pay was sentenced to 2 years 7 months’ imprisonment on 22 November 2024. Prior to his remand in custody, Mr Pay had accumulated Court fines of

$3,112.63. At the time of sentencing however, his Counsel was unaware of any outstanding fines and since being sentenced and released from custody, enforcement action against Mr Pay is being threatened.

Procedure for remitting fines

[2]                 This application was referred to me as the Sentencing Judge. The Crown filed a memorandum abiding the Court’s decision but noted that no report had been prepared under s 88AD(2)(c) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. I directed the Registrar to prepare a report under s 88AD(2)(c) under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and refer the report to the parties.

PAY v R [2025] NZHC 1043 [5 May 2025]

[3]                 Under s 19(7) of the Crimes Act 1961, the High Court has the power to remit fines at sentencing, by the application of Part 3 of the Summary Proceedings Act. Thus, the procedure under s 88 applies. Where a Registrar refers a matter to a Judge with a report on the applicant’s financial position, s 88AE(j) provides that, after considering the Registrar’s report, a Judge may remit the fines. As the Crown submits, that power can only be exercised once the Judge has complied with the s 88 procedure and considered both the report and the defendant’s financial position.1

[4]                 Following my direction, the Registrar has provided a means assessment of Mr Pay’s income and expenses together with a list of the outstanding fines imposed for the relevant offences and the amount outstanding. Having checked the payment transaction report, the fines summary and the means assessment, it is readily apparent that Mr Pay has no weekly disposable income and no means to pay the outstanding fines.

[5]                 I note that Mr Pay had set up an automatic bank payment from 2017, when the first outstanding fine was imposed and had made total payments for fines imposed subsequently from 2017 to 2019 of $15,835.37. Those automatic payments ceased when Mr Pay was likely remanded in custody. As Ms Hall submits, now that Mr Pay has been released from custody, he is unable to repay any fines amount now.

[6]                 I am satisfied that given the time since the fines were accumulated, the payments that Mr Pay has made by automatic payments from 2017 to 2019 prior to his remand in custody, and his current inability to pay fines now, remission of the outstanding fines is appropriate.

1      R v Eliu [2008] NZCA 239 at [5]; Brown v R [2009] NZCA 288 at [28], Hunt v R [2010] NZCA 78 at [16] and Ward v R [2011] NZCA 44 at [4].

Result

[7]Accordingly, I remit the outstanding fines of $3,345.63.

Cull J

Solicitors:

EA Hall, Wellington for Applicant

Crown Solicitor, Wellington for Respondent