Redhead v Ministry of Justice Collections Unit

[2015] NZHC 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2015-425-28 [2015] NZHC 2004

BETWEEN

KEVIN NEIL REDHEAD

Appellant

AND

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE COLLECTIONS UNIT Respondent

Hearing:	24 August 2015
Appearances:	J Fraser for the Appellant M J Thomas for the Respondent
Judgment:	24 August 2015

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1]      Mr Redhead appeals against a sentence of six weeks community detention and 150 hours community work imposed by Judge Cook in respect of his non- payment of some $6,897.92 in fines.

[2]      The notice of appeal filed by Mr Redhead referred to the “training part of sentence has been refused”.   Mr Redhead was self-represented, both before Judge Cook and in filing his appeal.  Mr Fraser, however, appeared on his behalf before me, and filed a short submission.

[3]      The apparent reason for the appeal is because the Probation Service has informed Mr Redhead that a reading programme, which it was anticipated he would be able access, is not available to him.  Such programmes are provided by volunteer organisations, and Mr Redhead did not meet the criteria, and was therefore deemed ineligible.

[4]      Mr Fraser’s submission was that Mr Redhead’s matter should be referred

back to the District Court for rehearing as a result.

REDHEAD v MINISTRY OF JUSTICE COLLECTIONS UNIT [2015] NZHC 2004 [24 August 2015]

[5]      It is apparent from Judge Cook’s notes on sentencing that there was some discussion between the Court and Mr Redhead about providing him with an opportunity to engage in some literacy training.

[6]      Under s 66A of the Sentencing Act 2002, where a person is sentenced to community  work  of  at  least  80  hours,  the  Probation  officer  may  direct  that  a specified number of hours be spent training in basic work and living skills.1   Judge Cook acknowledged that a community work sentence would be more constructive for Mr Redhead, and that taking that consideration into account, she imposed a period of community detention and community work.   It is not contended that the

substitute sentences  are  excessive having  regard  to  the level  of the outstanding unpaid fines.

[7]      The Crown has made inquiries with the Department of Corrections regarding the refusal to convert some of the appellant’s community work into training. Unfortunately, the particular organisation that runs the literacy and numeracy programme contemplated by the Corrections Department was not willing to accept Mr Redhead because of his criminal history.

[8]      It is understandable that Mr Redhead is disappointed by the fact that he is not able to convert some of the community work into training.  Nevertheless, the non- availability of the training programme does not affect the validity of the sentence imposed by Judge Cook.  Indeed, arguably, Mr Redhead has had the benefit of what may be considered a more lenient sentence, the Judge adopting the course that she did in the anticipation that the literacy training would be available.   The present situation  cannot  be  likened  to  some  type  of  sentencing  indication  whereby  a defendant is now in jeopardy of a harsher sentence than had otherwise been formally indicated.

[9]      During  the  course  of  oral  submissions,  it  became  apparent  that  perhaps

Mr Redhead’s chief concern related to the disputed accuracy of information relating to the outstanding fines, and the validity of tickets he has acquired which have

1      Sentencing Act 2002, s 66A.

contributed to that sum.   Similar concerns appear to have been expressed before

Judge Cook.

[10]     The difficulty for Mr Redhead, however, is that the legitimacy of the fines which, as observed by Judge Cook, “are longstanding and substantial”, was not an issue she was able to review.  The District Court was charged with the exercise of resentencing and remission of outstanding fines, not a review of the merits of the reasons for their original imposition.  There are other administrative routes available to Mr Redhead should he dispute their calculation or wish to contest earlier enforcement steps.   The validity of the fines and their calculation is not an issue which this Court on appeal is able to review, and particularly so in the absence of any decision in the lower Court regarding such matters.

[11]     It follows therefore that the imposition of six weeks community detention, coupled with 150 hours community work and remission of the fines were sentences available to the District Court. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Solicitors:

John K Fraser Law Ltd, Invercargill

Preston Russell Law, Invercargill