Police v Burrows

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CRI-2020-485-9

[2020] NZHC 1307

BETWEEN
NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Appellant

AND

WAYNE JOHN BURROWS

Respondent

Hearing: 10 June 2020

Counsel:

A R T Garrick and N Azam for Appellant Mr Burrows in person

Judgment:

11 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J (RESULT)

[1] On 17 December 2019 date Judge Mill stayed two charges under s 8(1)(b) of the Harassment Act 1997 which had been laid against Mr Burrows on 13 March 2017. He did so essentially on the grounds that processes under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 1993 (the CPMIP Act) had been triggered without jurisdiction and had resulted in a breach of Mr Burrows’ right to be tried without undue delay and/or that permitting the proceedings to continue would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system.1

[2] On 7 May 2020 Churchman J granted Police leave to appeal that decision on two questions of law, under s 296 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, namely:2

1 The Judge did not make an express finding that Mr Burrows’ right under s 25(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 had been breached. Mr Burrows’ application for a stay was made on both grounds.
2 Police v Burrows [2020] NZHC 930.

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v BURROWS [2020] NZHC 1307 [11 June 2020]

(a)whether Judge Mill was correct to find that Mr Burrows was not “in custody” at the time the report under s 38(1) of the CPMIP Act was ordered; and (if so)—

(b)whether a stay was the appropriate remedy.

[3] The first question relates to the Judge’s finding that the District Court had had no jurisdiction to order the report that triggered the CPMIP Act process.

[4] I indicated to counsel and to Mr Burrows yesterday that if it seemed possible that there would be any significant delay in issuing a substantive judgment I might first issue a “results” judgment. I have since formed the view that that would be the appropriate course, in light of both the history of the matter and the clear view I have formed.

[5]Accordingly, the answers to the two questions of law set out at [2] above are:

(a)Yes; and

(b)Yes.

[6] I will issue a further judgment recording my reasons for these conclusions as soon as I am able.

Rebecca Ellis J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office, Wellington for Appellant

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves an appeal by the New Zealand Police against a decision by Judge Mill to stay charges laid against Wayne John Burrows under the Harassment Act 1997. The appeal was heard before Ellis J, who issued a results judgment on 11 June 2020, affirming the stay. The court was tasked with determining whether Judge Mill was correct in finding that Mr Burrows was not "in custody" at the time the report under s 38(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 1993 was ordered, and whether a stay was the appropriate remedy. The court concluded that Judge Mill's finding that the District Court had no jurisdiction to order the report was correct, and that a stay was indeed the appropriate remedy.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the terms "in custody" under the CPMIP Act and the appropriate remedy for a jurisdictional error. The appellant argued that the District Court had jurisdiction to order the report, while the respondent maintained that the court lacked such jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the appropriate remedy for the jurisdictional error was to stay the proceedings or to allow them to continue. Ellis J determined that the District Court did not have the jurisdiction to order the report, as Mr Burrows was not "in custody" within the meaning of the CPMIP Act. Additionally, Ellis J agreed with Judge Mill's conclusion that a stay was the appropriate remedy in this case, given the circumstances.

In summary, the High Court upheld the stay of proceedings against Mr Burrows. Ellis J found that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to order a report under the CPMIP Act because Mr Burrows was not "in custody" at the relevant time. The court also agreed with Judge Mill's decision that a stay was the appropriate remedy in this case, considering the potential delay and the impact on Mr Burrows' right to be tried without undue delay, as well as the need to maintain public confidence in the judicial system. The final orders will be detailed in a subsequent judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	10 June 2020
Counsel:	A R T Garrick and N Azam for Appellant Mr Burrows in person
Judgment:	11 June 2020