Raue v Police - [2013] NZHC 3062

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about 1995 onwards,4 she has been the subject of a large number of charges on minor matters which have in the main been withdrawn or dismissed.5 The three matters she seeks to appeal are some of the few charges that did not have that outcome.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…

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 Raue v Police

Details

AGLC: Raue v Police [2013] NZHC 3062
Case: [2013] NZHC 3062
Decision Date: 19 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Katherine Jane Raue appeals against her convictions for assault in 2006 and wilful trespass in 2009, as well as her conviction and sentence for using indecent language in a public place in 2010. The court must decide whether to grant Ms Raue leave to appeal out of time, considering the principles governing extensions of time and the evidence presented in each case. The court also considers whether the delay in bringing the appeals and inadequate information provided to account for the delay justifies granting leave to appeal. For the 2006 assault conviction, the court finds that Ms Raue's appeal is unlikely to succeed as there was independent evidence supporting the victim's account and the judge had considered all relevant factors. For the 2009 wilful trespass conviction, the court also finds that an appeal would not succeed, as the judge was entitled to come to the conclusions he did based on the evidence presented. However, for the 2010 indecent language conviction and sentence, the court grants leave to appeal, allows the appeal, and quashes the conviction and sentence. The court finds that the delay in filing the appeal is reasonably lengthy, but Ms Raue has continued to have difficulties that have distracted her from pursuing the matter in a timely manner. The right to be heard in defence of a matter should not be lightly overridden.

The court declines to order a rehearing for the indecent language conviction and sentence, as it relates to a minor matter and the events at issue occurred over three years ago. The court also notes that Ms Raue may have been experiencing health difficulties during that time, and a number of other matters in respect of which she was arrested were not proceeded with. The court declines the applications for leave to appeal the assault conviction (2006) and the trespass conviction (2009).

Orders