Routhan v Police - [2016] NZHC 1495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-485-15 [2016] NZHC 1495

BETWEEN
JAYNE ELIZABETH ROUTHAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 28 June 2016

Counsel:

S M Bolland for Appellant
S W Woods for Respondent

Judgment:

1 July 2016

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

Introduction

[1] Following a Judge-alone trial in the District Court, Ms Routhan was convicted of trespass. She represented herself. Judge Bouchier ordered, by way of sentence, that she come up to Court for sentence if called upon within nine months.

[2] Ms Routhan was convicted pursuant to s 3(1) of the Trespass Act 1980. This provides that it is an offence to trespass on any place and refuse to leave after being warned by an occupier. This is generally referred to as the “single event” trespass offence.1 This is to be contrasted with s 4(4) of the Act. That provides it is an offence to trespass within two years of having been earlier warned by an occupier to stay off. That is the “two event” offence.

Facts

[3] Ms Routhan was, and remains, very unhappy with various decisions ACC had made about her and wished to protest about this. At some time between 12 pm and

1 Routhan v Police [2014] NZHC 3203 at [5].

ROUTHAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 1495 [1 July 2016]

1 pm on 2 September 2015, Ms Routhan visited the Wellington branch of ACC. She set herself up in the foyer within the building. She displayed two placards each containing handwritten text to the general effect that ACC would kill her through bad, lawless or neglectful decisions. She also displayed a painting in somewhat abstract form of a person with stab wounds in his or her back. The items embedded in the person’s back included a knife on which the letters “ACC” were painted.

[4] She sat on the floor in the reception area next to an armchair and a coffee table. By being located in this spot she blocked the fire exit door. A security guard repeatedly asked her to leave the premises. She refused. The manager was called and she too asked Ms Routhan to leave. Ms Routhan still refused. The police were then called.

[5] Meanwhile, the building was partially locked down in the sense that reception staff vacated that area and took refuge behind glass doors. Automatic sliding doors at the entrance to the reception area were then set to exit only. Ms Routhan would be permitted to leave, but clients could not enter. Business was brought to a standstill.

[6] When the Police arrived, they also asked Ms Routhan to leave. They arrested her when she again refused to do so.

District Court decision

[7] The Judge summarised the evidence of the security guard, the manager and the arresting constable. She also summarised Ms Routhan’s evidence.

[8] The Judge then found that all elements of the offence of one event trespass were met. The manager had the necessary delegated authority to act as…

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 Routhan v Police

Details

AGLC: Routhan v Police [2016] NZHC 1495
Case: [2016] NZHC 1495
Decision Date: 1 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Routhan v Police, Ms Routhan appealed her conviction for trespass at the Wellington District Court, arguing that the court failed to apply the reasonableness standard under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) to her case. Ms Routhan was found guilty of trespassing at the Wellington branch of ACC, where she had blocked a fire exit while protesting ACC's decisions. The court was tasked with determining whether the reasonableness standard should apply to the decision to invoke the Trespass Act in relation to public buildings, and if the court's failure to consider this standard led to an error of principle that affected the outcome of the case.

The court found that the reasonableness standard under NZBORA should apply when invoking the Trespass Act, as it is necessary to balance the rights of peaceful assembly and expression with the rights of others. The court considered whether the trespass was reasonably necessary, given the circumstances, and whether there were reasonable alternatives available to officials before invoking the Trespass Act. The court found that the District Court judge did not consider the reasonableness standard, resulting in an error of principle. The court further found that the trespass in this case was not reasonable, as Ms Routhan was not aggressive or violent, and her protest was not offensive.

As a result of the error of principle, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were quashed. The court emphasized that Ms Routhan should not be prejudiced for modifying her behaviour to avoid unreasonable interference with others, and that there were reasonable alternatives available to officials before invoking the Trespass Act. This case highlights the importance of considering the reasonableness standard when balancing the rights protected by NZBORA and the need to protect the rights of others.

Orders