Police v Moffat - [2020] NZHC 3057

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2020-488-000041

[2020] NZHC 3057

BETWEEN
NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Appellant

AND

RYAN ANDREW MOFFAT

Respondent

Hearing: 18 November 2020

Appearances:

R Annandale for Appellant D J Blaikie for Respondent

Judgment:

19 November 2020

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 19 November 2020 at 2.30pm
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei D J Blaikie, Kaikohe

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v MOFFAT [2020] NZHC 3057 [19 November 2020]

Introduction

[1] The respondent, Ryan Moffat, was charged with arson pursuant to s 267(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961. The charge alleged that Mr Moffat acted recklessly and not that he acted intentionally.

[2] Mr Moffat accepted responsibility for detonating an explosion which caused the fire the subject of the charge. He denied however that his actions in detonating the explosion were reckless. He sought to be discharged under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. His application in this regard was declined by Judge Collins in the Kaikohe District Court.1

[3] Mr Moffat accepted the Judge’s ruling and entered a guilty plea to the charge as a consequence. He then sought a discharge without conviction and, on 18 August 2020, this second application was granted by Judge Shortland, also in the Kaikohe District Court.2

[4] The police now seek leave to appeal Judge Shortland’s ruling discharging Mr Moffat without conviction. It is submitted that the prospective appeal raises two questions of law. First, did the Judge err in his assessment of the gravity of the offending, and secondly, did the Judge err in his assessment of the consequences of a conviction?

[5] The application for leave to appeal is opposed. It is argued for Mr Moffat that no questions of law arise from Judge Shortland’s decision.

Factual background

[6] Mr Moffat is a certified handler of pyrotechnics. This allows him to store, transport and handle restricted pyrotechnic items, such as fireworks.

[7] Mr Moffat constructed a homemade pipe bomb. He placed an explosive substance into a brass casing. The casing was secured with electrical tape. The

1 Police v Moffat [2019] NZDC 19887.
2 Police v Moffat [2020] NZDC 16505.

explosive was connected to wires which could be used to detonate the device from a remote location.

[8] On 19 January 2019, Mr Moffat and three associates travelled to Rangihoua Heritage Park on the Purerua Peninsula in the Bay of Islands. A fire ban was in place at the time and a permit was required to light most types of fires.

[9] Mr Moffat intended to detonate his homemade explosive device. He and his associates parked their vehicle in the main carpark. They then partially filled two ziplock bags with petrol. They walked one and a half kilometres down a beach, carrying the two ziplock bags containing the petrol, the explosive device and other items needed to detonate the device, including a spool of wire and a remote detonator.

[10]…

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 Police v Moffat

Details

AGLC: Police v Moffat [2020] NZHC 3057
Case: [2020] NZHC 3057
Decision Date: 19 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the police appealed against the decision of Judge Shortland, who discharged Ryan Moffat without conviction on a charge of arson. The police argued that the Judge erred in his assessment of the gravity of the offending and the consequences of a conviction. The court found that the Judge had indeed overlooked relevant factors in assessing the gravity of the offending, such as the fact that a fire ban was in place, and Moffat was a certified handler of pyrotechnics. The court also found that there was insufficient evidence to support the Judge's conclusions regarding the consequences of a conviction. The appeal was allowed, and the decision to discharge Moffat without conviction was set aside. The matter was remitted to the District Court for sentencing.

Orders