R v Police HC Auckland CRI 2008-404-73

[2008] NZHC 771

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2008-404-73

BETWEEN  R

Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         26 May 2008

Counsel:         No appearance by or on behalf of Appellant

M Wright for Respondent

Judgment:      26 May 2008

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Copy to:

Appellant in person

R V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC AK CRI 2008-404-73  26 May 2008

Waitakere on 13 March 2008, by Judge Tremewan.

[2]      Mr R   pleaded guilty to an amended charge, under the Summary Offences Act 1981, of acting in a disorderly manner likely to cause violence.  On the day the charge was amended, Mr R   immediately entered a guilty plea and was sentenced.

[3]      The incident in issue involved Mr R   throwing four empty beer bottles towards a flat at the back of his property.  The District Court Judge recorded this as “quite a bad incident” but determined to sentence Mr R   to a term of supervision for a period of six months.  As special conditions of the supervision sentence, the Judge included terms requiring him to complete any alcohol or drug counselling the probation officer may recommend and any work skills training or course that he or she may recommend.

[4]      Mr R   has not appeared today on his appeal.  He was called in the precincts of the Court but was not present.  I proceeded in his absence.

[5]      Mr R  ’ primary concern is that a fine was more appropriate and that the skills training term was inappropriate because he was already employed.

[6]      I have reviewed the summary of facts to which Mr R   pleaded guilty.   I have had the benefit of submissions from Mr Wright, for the Police.  I am satisfied that a sentence of supervision was available to the Judge.   In my view, it was the most appropriate sentence.

[7]      While Mr R   may have some concerns about the work skills aspects, that should only be undertaken if there were any direction by a probation officer.  If, as Mr  R    says,  he  is  now  in  full-time  employment,  that  direction  would  most probably not be given.

P R Heath J