Raue v Police
[2013] NZHC 3062
•19 November 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND MASTERTON REGISTRY
CRI 2013-435-1 [2013] NZHC 3062
BETWEEN KATHERINE JANE RAUE Appellant
ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
CRI 2013-435-2
BETWEEN KATHERINE JANE RAUE Appellant
ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
CRI 2013-435-3
BETWEEN KATHERINE JANE RAUE Appellant
ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
Hearing: 3 September 2013 (Heard at Wellington)
Counsel: K Raue appearing in person
S Carter for the Respondent
Judgment: 19 November 2013
JUDGMENT OF MALLON J
Table of Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... [1] Power to extend time ......................................................................................................................... [5] Assault conviction.............................................................................................................................. [7] Wilful trespass conviction ............................................................................................................... [19] Indecent language conviction and sentence .................................................................................. [37] Result ................................................................................................................................................ [48]
RAUE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 3062 [19 November 2013]
Introduction
[1] Ms Raue appeals out of time against her convictions for assault (2006)1 and wilful trespass (2009),2 and her conviction and sentence for using indecent language in a public place (2010).3
[2] Ms Raue believes that the New Zealand Police have embarked on a “campaign of harassment and unfounded malicious and vexatious prosecutions” and are biased against her. From about 1995 onwards,4 she has been the subject of a large number of charges on minor matters which have in the main been withdrawn or dismissed.5 The three matters she seeks to appeal are some of the few charges that did not have that outcome.
[3] Ms Raue says that the conduct of the police has caused her significant stress and anxiety. She was in compulsory care for three months for serious mental illness in 2011. I understand that she believes she was not mentally ill and should not have been in that care. She also informs me that she has been very busy on other matters involving her family, and has had difficulties with accessing her property and other equipment. She also says she has had difficulties with legal representation. She says that all of these things have made it difficult for her to bring her appeals earlier. She says that in each of three matters she is appealing the evidence shows that she is innocent.
[4] The appeals are opposed on the basis that there has been considerable delay in bringing the appeals and inadequate information has been provided to account for
that delay. In relation to the 2006 and 2009 convictions it is noted that Ms Raue is
1 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 9, with a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or a
fine not exceeding $4,000.
2 Trespass Act 1980, ss 4 and 11, with a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $1,000.
3 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 4(1)(c)(ii), with a maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding
$1,000. The summary of facts refers to s 4(1)(b) of the Act (which concerns words intended to offend, alarm, insult or threaten). Section 4(1)(c)(ii) concerns indecent language.
4 In and prior to 1980 she was convicted and sentenced on a number of charges which were mainly for minor dishonesty offending.
5 Ms Raue considers that this list may be inaccurate because it includes more convictions than she understands she has. I note that concern but it is not material to my assessment of her appeals.
not raising new evidence. Rather she contends that the Court should have formed a different view of the evidence. In relation to the 2010 conviction the respondent acknowledges that there may be an issue as to whether it should have proceeded in Ms Raue’s absence, but it is said that it is nevertheless not in the public interest to permit an appeal brought well out of time.
Power to extend time
[5] A notice of appeal must be filed by an appellant within 28 working days of their sentencing or other disposition.6 The Court has the power to extend that time.7
Principles relevant to whether an extension of time should be granted are as follows:8
(a) The onus is on the applicant to show that there existed special circumstances why the decisions and sentences should not stand.
(b)The discretion was given essentially for the purpose of avoiding miscarriages of justice.
(c) All the circumstances of the particular case should be considered in deciding whether sufficient grounds have been shown.
(d)But one of the matters which must be established is that there is a real likelihood that an appeal would succeed if leave was granted.
[6] In light of these principles I turn to consider the information before me in relation to each of the three matters.
6 Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 116.
7 Section 123(1).
8 Cleggs Ltd v Department of Internal Affairs HC Auckland M1032/84, 5 September 1984 recently applied in Gerber v New Zealand Police [2013] NZHC 773 at [8] and Bates v New Zealand Police [2013] NZHC 186 at [13].
Assault conviction
Facts
[7] This concerned a confrontation on 22 March 2006 involving Ms Raue and her boarder, Mr Manson, over outstanding rent. It was alleged that Ms Raue slammed a door into Mr Manson and that she then punched Mr Manson in the nose three times. It was alleged that Mr Manson suffered injuries, which included an abrasion to his nose and a cut to the inside of his lip. Mr Manson made a 111 call. An ambulance and the police attended.
District Court hearing
[8] A defended hearing took place in the District Court on 4 August 2006. Ms Raue attended the hearing and was represented by counsel (Mr M Appleby). The prosecution called evidence from Mr Manson, and the ambulance officer and two police officers who attended the scene. Mr Manson said that Ms Raue was ranting and raving about a number of matters including that he owed her $45 for rent. He said that Ms Raue closed the kitchen door on him causing him to drop the cup and saucer he was holding and punched him three times. He called 111.
[9] Ms Raue gave evidence in her defence, contending that she was frightened of Mr Manson and had cut her hand on the bathroom door trying to get away from him. She also called evidence from a Mr Allomes, who supported her account that there had been a number of disputes between Ms Raue and Mr Manson over rent.
[10] The Judge found the charge proven. In making that finding she said that she preferred the evidence of Mr Manson over that of Ms Raue. This was because Mr Manson’s evidence was supported by his physical injuries, which were observed by the ambulance officer and the police when they attended and which were shown in the photographs taken on the day of the incident. It was also supported by Mr Manson’s 111 call, the broken cup and saucer, and that the officer in charge, who saw Ms Raue that day, noticed grazes on her knuckles.
[11] In relation to specific matters raised on Ms Raue’s behalf:
(a) The Judge rejected the suggestion that Mr Manson made his injuries worse - she said that it was difficult to see how he would have had the opportunity to do so and it was the police who first noticed that Mr Manson’s mouth was bleeding.
(b)The Judge considered that not much could be taken from Mr Manson’s previous convictions nor Ms Raue’s conviction history. She noted that Mr Manson had convictions for fraud and theft some 10 years ago but that did not preclude him from being assaulted and that Ms Raue had convictions which were a long time ago and a conviction for threatening language in 2005.
(c) The Judge noted that there were some inconsistencies in Mr Manson’s evidence such as his exact location when he was treated by the ambulance, but these were not sufficiently material to affect her conclusion.
(d)The Judge did not accept Ms Raue’s evidence that she was acting in self-defence.
[12] The charge being found proven, Ms Raue applied for a discharge without conviction.9 This was heard on 7 September 2006. The application was unsuccessful. A conviction was entered. Sentencing was deferred to enable Ms Raue to attend an anger management course. On 9 November 2006 Ms Raue was discharged without further sentence. On that same day Ms Raue filed a notice of appeal against her conviction and costs
Earlier appeal
[13] The appeal was heard by Ronald Young J on 24 April 2007. Ms Raue was again represented by counsel (Mr Appleby). I understand from Ms Raue that she was not able to attend the hearing. Ronald Young J gave his decision on 26 April
2007.10 His judgment makes it clear that the appeal was in respect of the refusal to
9 Sentencing Act 2002, ss 106 and 107.
10 R v Raue HC Wellington CRI-2006-435-13, 26 April 2007.
discharge Ms Raue without conviction rather than an appeal against whether the charge was proven. He dismissed the appeal finding that a discharge without conviction would have been “inappropriate and clearly wrong in this case” because the assault was serious and the effects of a conviction were not out of all proportion to the seriousness of the offending.11
Grounds of appeal
[14] Ms Raue filed her second notice of appeal against conviction on 6 March
2013. Her grounds of appeal are that:
(a) the District Court Judge gave insufficient regard to the inconsistency of Mr Manson’s evidence with that of the prosecution and other witnesses;
(b) the District Court Judge gave insufficient regard to Mr Manson’s large
number of convictions for dishonesty;
(c) evidence from witnesses contradicted that given by Mr Manson;
(d)there was evidence of bias and prejudice by local police regarding this charge; and
(e) she was prevented from attending an appeal of this matter.
My assessment
[15] There is a preliminary issue as to whether Ms Raue has a right to appeal in light of the earlier appeal heard by Ronald Young J. It has been held in a number of
cases12 that an appeal against a refusal to grant a discharge without conviction is an
11 At [10].
12 See Simon France J in Lee v New Zealand Police HC Auckland CRI-2005-404-28, 27 July 2005 at [15]; Newton v New Zealand Police HC Nelson CRI-2007-042-4709, 6 August 2008 at [2]; C
v New Zealand Police HC Nelson CRI-2008-442-8, 27 May 2008 at [11]; Whitehead v Commerce Commission HC Napier CRI-2010-441-2, 9 March 2010 where Harrison J stated at [13], “I interpolate to note my agreement with Simon France J that an appeal against a refusal or failure to discharge without conviction is strictly one against sentence. That is because the basis of the verdict or plea is not in issue”.
appeal against sentence. Ronald Young J’s judgment explicitly did not address the basis of Ms Raue’s conviction. Therefore, whether the District Court Judge erred in finding the charge proven, has not been considered on appeal. As such it may be that her right to appeal that finding remains. I proceed on that basis. She cannot, however, appeal for a second time the decision to decline her a discharge without conviction even though she was unable to attend the appeal on that decision.
[16] I have had the opportunity to review the evidence at the District Court hearing. I am satisfied that an appeal would not succeed. Mr Allsome’s evidence was to the effect that he was aware that Mr Manson and Ms Raue had a number of arguments over rent. This was intended to cast doubt on Mr Manson’s evidence that there was no dispute about rent, rather Ms Raue was ranting and raving about a number of things including that he owed Ms Raue money for rent. There was also an issue about whether Mr Manson may have overstated his injuries (he referred to a broken nose and bruised ribs). These matters, together with Mr Manson’s previous convictions for dishonesty, were relevant in assessing Mr Manson’s credibility.
[17] These matters were, however, all before the Judge when she made her assessment. Importantly, there was other evidence which independently supported Mr Manson’s account over that of Ms Raue. In particular Mr Manson had called
111, injuries to his nose and mouth were observed by the ambulance officer and the police, photographs were taken which showed those injuries, and Ms Raue had an injury to her hand near her knuckles. All of those matters supported Mr Manson’s account rather than Ms Raue’s account.
[18] I therefore consider it is not an appropriate case to grant Ms Raue leave to appeal her conviction.
Wilful trespass conviction
Facts
[19] On 17 May 2007 Mr Henderson, the manager of the Wairarapa Community
Law Centre, presented Ms Raue with a trespass notice with a two year duration. On
30 September 2008 Ms Raue arrived at the Law Centre’s offices for the Law
Centre’s Annual General Meeting (AGM). On 8 October 2008 Ms Raue again attended the Law Centre’s offices. Mr Henderson asked her to leave. She declined to do so. The police were called. Ms Raue was arrested and charged with trespass under s 4 of the Trespass Act 1980.
The elements of the charge
[20] Section 4 of the Trespass Act provides:
(1) Where any person is trespassing or has trespassed on any place, an occupier of that place may, at the time of the trespass or within a reasonable time thereafter, warn him to stay off that place.
...
(4) ... every person commits an offence against this Act who, being a person who has been warned under this section to stay off any place, wilfully trespasses on that place within 2 years after the giving of the warning.
[21] In order for a person to be convicted of an offence under s 4(4) they must have:
(a) been trespassing or trespassed on a place;
(b)been warned to stay off the place by an occupier at the time of the trespass or in a reasonable time thereafter; and
(c) wilfully trespassed on that place within two years after the giving of the warning.
District Court hearing
[22] A defended hearing took place on 27 April 2009. Ms Raue was represented by counsel (Mr Bott). Evidence for the prosecution was given by Mr Henderson and the police officer who attended on 8 October 2008 and arrested Ms Raue. Ms Raue gave evidence in her defence.
[23] Mr Henderson gave evidence that during his time at the Law Centre he had
had many discussions with Ms Raue and that “the majority of those discussions ...
ended ... with Ms Raue abusing [him] or [his] staff and subsequently hanging up the phone in most instances”. In her evidence Ms Raue said that she had “never, ever behaved in a rude, abusive or threatening manner at all”, was always “polite and courteous” and had “always enjoyed a good relationship with the rest of the staff there”.
[24] Mr Henderson said that the reason for him trespassing Ms Raue was that on
17 May 2007 he received about 10 pages of faxed information from the Wellington Police Station detailing a file for a Mr Lindsay. Mr Henderson made enquires, as a result of which he understood that Ms Raue had requested that information be sent through to the Law Centre. Mr Henderson was concerned that Ms Raue was holding herself out to be an employee of the Law Centre. In anticipation of Ms Raue
attending at the Law Centre and difficulties arising he prepared a trespass notice.13
[25] Mr Henderson said that Mr Lindsay and Ms Raue arrived at the Law Centre that day. Mr Henderson said he tried to discuss the issue with Ms Raue that she could not hold herself out as an employee of the Law Centre. He said that she did not want to discuss it and instead became “very aggressive”, demanding the information that had been faxed to the Law Centre. Mr Henderson said that he made it “perfectly clear” to Ms Raue that she was to leave because her behaviour was becoming “very threatening”. When Ms Raue did not leave Mr Henderson served her with the trespass notice.
[26] Ms Raue’s evidence was that she was not “specifically” warned to leave before she was served with the trespass notice. She did, however, accept that Mr Henderson made it “very clear to me that he didn’t like me, and he didn’t like me being there, and he didn’t want to help me.”
[27] On 30 September 2008 the Law Centre was holding its AGM. Ms Raue arrived at the Law Centre at that time and Mr Henderson was immediately alerted to her presence. He told her that that there was a trespass notice against her and asked
her to leave. According to Mr Henderson, Ms Raue indicated she was aware of the
13 It was suggested to Mr Henderson that the trespass notice may have been served on 19 May
2007. The evidence supported Mr Henderson’s recollection that it was 17 May, because 19 May was a Saturday and the Law Centre is not open on weekends.
trespass notice but she refused to leave because she wanted to make a complaint. Ms Raue walked to the back of the meeting room. The meeting had not yet started. Mr Henderson said that one of the lawyers attending the meeting said that if the notice was not enforced it would lapse. Mr Henderson called the police because Ms Raue was indicating that she did not want to leave. However she did start walking slowly out and in the foyer approached the Treasurer and spoke to him for a few minutes. She then left.
[28] Ms Raue’s evidence was that she thought she could attend the AGM on 30
September 2008 because the meeting was advertised in the newspaper as open to the public and the advertisement said “all welcome”. She said that the Chairman and the Treasurer told her that they did not have any objection to her being there. She said that she felt intimidated by Mr Henderson.
[29] About a week later on 8 October 2008 Ms Raue once again entered the Law Centre. Mr Henderson’s evidence was that she walked in and asked how she could make a complaint against him. He said he had no idea what her ultimate goal was. Ms Raue’s evidence was that she went to the Law Centre that day because she wanted to get some brochures and pamphlets. The police were called. Sergeant Holden attended. When he arrived Ms Raue was seated in the reception area. He asked Ms Raue if she was aware that she was trespassed from the Law Centre. She indicated that she was. He arrested Ms Raue for trespass.
[30] Ms Raue’s evidence was that when she attended the Law Centre on 8 October
2008 she thought that the notice was invalid. This was because the Chairman and the Treasurer at the AGM indicated she could do so, she did not accept that Mr Henderson had authority to issue the notice and the notice was an attempt to pervert the course of justice (in relation to a case that Mr Lindsay had coming up). She also said that she told the police officer who arrested her about her concerns regarding the validity of the notice. The police officer did not recall Ms Raue mentioning any of those concerns.
District Court Judge’s decision
[31] Three matters were raised on Ms Raue’s behalf, namely:
(a) that there had been no warning prior to the trespass notice being issued and therefore the grounds for issuing a trespass notice were not established;
(b)Ms Raue did not trespass on 8 October 2008 because she had an honest belief that the notice was invalid; and
(c) the arrest on 8 October 2008 was an improper exercise of police discretion.
[32] The Judge was satisfied that Mr Henderson was the occupier of the Law Centre and could warn anyone to stay off that place, that the notice was properly phrased, that it was served on Ms Raue, and that Ms Raue was present at the offices of the Law Centre on 8 October 2008, within the two year period covered in the
trespass notice.14 On the specific matters raised in Ms Raue’s defence:
(a) The Judge accepted Mr Henderson’s evidence that he requested that
Ms Raue leave prior to handing her the trespass notice.
(b)The Judge preferred the evidence of the police officer that Ms Raue had not raised her concerns about the validity of the trespass notice with him. The Judge considered that Ms Raue had gone to the Law Centre on 8 October 2008 in “furtherance of this troubled relationship that had developed between her and the [Law Centre], which seems to have its roots in some real or perceived complaint about the closing of some other community centre and also in a developing antipathy
between her and Mr Henderson”.15
(c) The Judge considered that the arrest of Ms Raue was a proper exercise
of the police officer’s discretion to do so.
14 New Zealand Police v Raue DC Masterton CRI-2008-035-1886, 27 April 2009 (conviction judgment).
15 At [34].
[33] The Judge found the charge proven. Ms Raue’s counsel sought a discharge without conviction. The application was declined. Ms Raue was convicted and discharged.16 No penalty other than the entry of the conviction was considered necessary. This was at the conclusion of the hearing on 27 April 2009.
Grounds of appeal
[34] On 6 March 2013 Ms Raue filed her appeal. The grounds of that appeal are that:
(a) there is evidence the Chairman gave her permission at the AGM to attend the Law Centre, which nullified any trespass notice she might have been given; and
(b)the hearing went on until after 7 pm and there were serious discrepancies in the evidence presented by the prosecution which were not addressed or given sufficient weight.
My assessment
[35] I have had the opportunity to review the evidence at the District Court hearing. I am satisfied that an appeal would not succeed. Ms Raue, who was represented by counsel, did not call evidence from the Chairman or the Treasurer to support her contention that she was entitled to go to the Law Centre despite the existence of the trespass notice. On the evidence before the Judge he was entitled to come to the conclusions he did on the matters raised. From my review of the evidence there were no material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence and the hearing was conducted fairly.
[36] I therefore consider it is not an appropriate case to grant leave to allow
Ms Raue to bring an appeal against this conviction.
16 New Zealand Police v Raue DC Masterton CRI-2008-035-1886, 27 April 2009 (sentencing notes).
Indecent language conviction and sentence
Facts
[37] According to the police summary of facts, the alleged circumstances were as follows. In the early afternoon of 4 July 2010 police received a complaint that Ms Raue had taken her former partner’s bicycle. Ms Raue was then observed by two police officers riding the bicycle. The police officers stopped and spoke with Ms Raue. Ms Raue became upset and angry. She then walked across the street onto a footpath and yelled at the two constables, “Get fucked you cunts”. The police officers told her to stop using language like that. Ms Raue continued to yell “you are nothing but corrupt cunts” and other obscenities while walking next to a female with two young children. Ms Raue went into an address and, after a brief struggle, was arrested.
[38] Ms Raue was charged with using indecent language in a public place. She was bailed by police to appear on 8 July 2010. She failed to appear at that time and the case was adjourned to 10 August 2010 for formal proof. On 10 August 2010 Ms Raue appeared and the case was further adjourned until 7 September 2010. On that date it appears that Ms Raue was called twice but failed to appear. The Justices of the Peace proceeded with the hearing by way of formal proof. The Justices of Peace found Ms Raue guilty of indecent language and fined her $200 plus court costs of
$130.17 They noted that Ms Raue had been seen in Court earlier in the day “so she
was aware that she should have been here”.18
Informal application for rehearing
[39] On 15 December 2010 Mr Daniels, a lawyer, wrote to the Masterton District Court regarding the hearing on 7 September 2010. He was not instructed by Ms Raue but said he was writing “on an informal basis” for Ms Raue. He said that he had been informed that Ms Raue did attend Court and waited there until approximately 1 pm when she became unwell. She indicated to a person at the Court
that if the matter was called immediately she could attend, but otherwise she needed
17 New Zealand Police v Raue DC Masterton CRI-2010-035-1254, 7 September 2010.
18 At [4].
to go home because she was not well. Mr Daniels said that Ms Raue obtained a medical certificate and said that she took it to the Court either over the luncheon adjournment or immediately after. Mr Daniels stated that despite Ms Raue being present and wanting to be present for the hearing of the matter the case proceeded in her absence by way of formal proof.
[40] Mr Daniels said that Ms Raue only became aware of her conviction and sentence because money was deducted from her benefit. Mr Daniels said that it appeared to him “that the case was not dealt with fairly or properly by the Justices on
7 September 2010”. He said that Ms Raue sought to have the matter reheard so that she could have the opportunity of defending the charge against her.19
[41] A medical certificate is on the file dated 7 September 2010. The letter
advises that Ms Raue is a patient in the doctor’s care. The letter advises:
She is very depressed, and not in a fit state to appear in Court today. She is known to be claustrophobic and suffers marked anxiety whenever she is incarcerated. It would be appreciated if her court appearance could be delayed until the medication she has been prescribed can have an effect.
[42] On 18 January 2011 the Justices of the Peace who dealt with Ms Raue’s matter replied to Mr Daniels’ letter. They said that Ms Raue was called for the first time at 11 am on 7 September 2010 but she could not be located. The matter was rescheduled to the end of the list. At 12.25 pm Ms Raue was again called and “every effort” was made to locate her because she had been seen in the courthouse earlier that day. They said that there had been no indication by Ms Raue that she wanted a formal hearing. They also said there was nothing to support that the medical certificate produced by Ms Raue was obtained or produced at the Court prior to its sitting. They noted that “Ms Raue has a history of being difficult to deal with in regard to her various Court appearances”, so the Court made every effort to resolve the matter in a fair and unprejudiced manner. Having considered and re-examined the procedures which culminated in Ms Raue being convicted and fined in her absence by the Court, the Court did not agree that the conviction should be
withdrawn or that there should be a rehearing.
19 Section 75(1) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 provides that a Justice or Justices may, in his or her or their discretion, grant a rehearing of the information or complaint upon such terms as he or they think fit.
Grounds of appeal
[43] Ms Raue appeals her conviction and sentence on the basis that the hearing was conducted unfairly in her absence and she did not get an opportunity to defend herself. She says that there is indisputable evidence that the two police officers were acting ultra vires and committed perjury but she did not have the opportunity to call witnesses and adduce evidence. She also says that the bicycle she was riding was not stolen and she did not say the words she is alleged to have said. She also says that she has a witness (Ms Pye) who can confirm that she did not use this language.
My assessment
[44] At the time the Justices of the Peace decided to proceed with formal proof they were not wrong to do so in the circumstances as they understood them to be. Ms Raue failed to appear on 8 July 2010. She was aware of the 7 September 2010 date (it having been set when she turned up on 10 August 2010). Efforts were made to find her that morning.
[45] However when Ms Raue’s absence on 7 September 2010 was explained to the Justices of Peace there was a strong case for granting a rehearing. Ms Raue had made it clear that she wished to be heard both by her attendance on 10 August 2010 (when the matter was adjourned) and because she was seen in the Court premises on
7 September 2010. The medical certificate supported Ms Raue’s account that she did not attend when called by the Justices of Peace because she was unwell and had to leave. No appeal lies against the refusal to grant a rehearing.20 However what the informal application for a rehearing shows, is that Ms Raue wished to be heard in defence of the charge and, because of personal health difficulties, was denied that opportunity.
[46] The respondent accepts that the rehearing probably ought to have been granted. It says, however, that the question is whether it is now in the public interest to allow Ms Raue to appeal this matter given the delay in filing her appeal. I agree
that the delay is reasonably lengthy. However it does seem that Ms Raue has
20 Royal v New Zealand Police HC Wellington CRI-2010-485-91, 21 October 2010 citing (at footnote 1): Tuohy v Police [1959] NZLR 865 (HC); Police v Norman [1975] 1 NZLR 391 (CA); Vanniselroy v New Zealand Police HC Dunedin CRI-2007-412-61, 6 December 2007.
continued to have some difficulties which have distracted her from pursuing this matter in a timely manner. The right to be heard in defence of a matter ought not to be lightly overridden.21
[47] I consider the appropriate course is to grant leave to Ms Raue to appeal her conviction and sentence, to allow her appeal and to quash the conviction and sentence. Ordinarily a rehearing would be the appropriate remedy. However, I note that this relates to a minor matter, the events at issue were over three years ago, and the incident took place during a period when Ms Raue may have been experiencing health difficulties22 and when a number of other matters in respect of which Ms Raue was arrested were not proceeded with. In these circumstances I decline to order a rehearing.
Result
[48] The applications for leave to appeal the assault conviction (2006) and the trespass conviction (2009) are declined. The application for leave to appeal the indecent language conviction (2010) is granted, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence are quashed and no rehearing is ordered.
[49] For completeness I note that Ms Raue sent further information to me after the appeal was heard. That information does not alter any of the views I have reached.
Mallon J
21 See for example Carr-Gomm v New Zealand Police [2013] NZHC 415 and Sealey v Police [2012] NZHC 120 where convictions/orders were quashed because the appellants’ right to be heard had been compromised.
22 I note that Ms Raue disputes that she needed to be under compulsory care in 2011. However the medical certificate provided in September 2007 points to health difficulties at this time.
3
0