Police v Burrows
[2020] NZHC 1307
•11 June 2020
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