R v Police - [2014] NZHC 2178

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

CRI-2014-406-000014

CRI-2014-496-000015 [2014] NZHC 2178

R

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 9 September 2014

Counsel:

L A Murdoch for Appellant
S K O'Donoghue for Respondent

Judgment:

9 September 2014

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

Introduction

[1] The appellant, R, faces one charge of being found in a public place preparing to commit an imprisonable offence,1 one charge of possession of an offensive weapon,2 and one charge of using a telephone for a fictitious purpose.3 R appeals
against the decision of Judge Mill to refuse bail and name suppression.

1      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 28(1). The maximum penalty for this charge is a $2,000 fine.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(a).     The maximum penalty for this charge is three years’
imprisonment.
3      Telecommunications Act 2001, s 112(2)(b). The maximum penalty for this charge is three
months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.

R v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2178 [9 September 2014]

Relevant facts

[2] The first two charges arise out of an incident on the evening of 17 August

2014. The appellant was observed carrying a hunting crossbow near a paddock containing sheep. The observer told him to leave and he complied. When spoken to by police, the appellant admitted that he went to the paddock with the intention of stealing a sheep. According to the summary of facts the appellant cooperated fully with police and was very remorseful for his actions. The appellant received bail and was released.

[3] The events giving rise to the third charge occurred on the morning of

2 September 2014, 24 hours after a fatal shooting incident at the Ashburton offices of Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ). The appellant rang the Collections Department of the Ministry of Justice to discuss repayments of unpaid fines. He had previously planned to use his Work and Income benefit to pay his outstanding fines. Following a short exchange, the appellant told the telephone operator that he did not meet the requirements for a benefit. The appellant then said:

I think I need to go in there with a shotgun and shoot somebody before I get a benefit from those fellas.

[4] The telephone operator replied that the appellant’s comment was “inappropriate” before terminating the conversation. In response to the appellant’s comment, the Blenheim office of WINZ, the office of Child, Youth and Family, Probation Services and Maata Waaka were closed down for approximately four hours. The appellant was arrested at his house without incident by members of the Armed Offenders Squad.

[5] A recording of the phone call is available to the Court. My impression is that the comment was made in a conversational non-threatening tone. It was followed by a brief laugh that I would describe as nervous. In response to the telephone operator’s stern reply, the appellant murmurs uncertainly “uh … I … did … um…

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 R v Police

Details

AGLC: R v Police [2014] NZHC 2178
Case: [2014] NZHC 2178
Decision Date: 9 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, R, faced one charge of being found in a public place preparing to commit an imprisonable offence, one charge of possession of an offensive weapon, and one charge of using a telephone for a fictitious purpose. The appellant appealed against the decision of Judge Mill to refuse bail and name suppression. The appellant had recently been observed carrying a hunting crossbow near a paddock containing sheep with the intention of stealing a sheep. The appellant was remorseful and cooperated fully with police. The appellant also made a comment over the phone, in a conversational tone, that he thought he needed to go in with a shotgun and shoot somebody before he got a benefit from the Ministry of Justice. The appellant admitted that this comment was a misplaced attempt at humour. The appellant had previous convictions dating back to 1993, which he attributed to alcohol abuse. The appellant had been sober and a different man since moving to the South Island in 2012. The appellant had ambitions to start a business and had had several positive business meetings with local companies. The appellant was currently unemployed and had four young children. The appellant was not bailable as of right and had to be released by a Court on reasonable terms unless the Court was satisfied that there was a just cause for continued detention. The court found that the appellant should have been bailed as the offence for which he was charged was, when viewed objectively, minor. The court found that there was no proper basis to deny him bail. The court granted interim name suppression pending the outcome of sentencing and the consideration of a fresh application for suppression at that point.

Orders