Rowlings v Police - [2020] NZHC 564

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-463-10

[2020] NZHC 564

BETWEEN
BECKIE VALERIE ROWLINGS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 19 March 2020

Appearances:

CA Gentleman for Appellant SH Sheridan for Respondent

Judgment:

19 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 March 2020 at 2.30 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

ROWLINGS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 564 [19 March 2020]

[1]Ms Rowlings pleaded guilty on 17 October 2019 to the following charges:

(a)Refusing an officer’s request for a blood specimen;1 and

(b)Possession of cannabis.2

[2] On 29 January 2020, Judge Bidois granted Ms Rowlings’ application for discharge without conviction in relation to the possession charge. Ms Rowlings now appeals Judge Bidois’ decision to refuse her application for a discharge without conviction in relation to her second charge - refusing an officer’s request for a blood specimen.

Alleged Facts

[3] At about 5.00pm on Tuesday 9 April 2019, Police found Ms Rowlings sitting in a Nissan car parked in a layby off Otarawairere Road in Whakatane.

[4] When the police came and spoke to Ms Rowlings, they saw a small bag of cannabis sitting in the driver foot well of the car. They invoked a search of the vehicle under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. Police located numerous small zip lock bags containing cannabis in one of Ms Rowlings’ bags. They found approximately 2 grams of cannabis in total.

[5] Police suspected Ms Rowlings had consumed cannabis, and so they required her to complete an impairment test. She failed to complete that test to a satisfactory level so was required to submit a blood specimen. She refused to allow the Police to take a blood specimen.

[6] She told the Police that the cannabis in the bag was hers, but that she didn’t know about the cannabis under the driver’s seat. She also told the Police that she refused to take the blood specimen test as she does not like needles.

1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 60(1)(a).
2 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 7(1)(a) and 7(2).

District Court Decision

[7] In assessing whether Ms Rowlings should be discharged without conviction, Judge Bidois first assessed the gravity of the offending in respect of each offence. He was satisfied that the gravity of the possession charges was low. However, he considered the gravity of Ms Rowlings’ failure to co-operate with the police with respect of the blood testing was high, as she was suspected to have driven while under the influence of cannabis and possibly alcohol.

[8] The Judge then turned his attention to the consequences of conviction. Ms Rowlings submitted that there would be serious consequences to her ability to become an air hostess with a conviction. The concern was that a criminal conviction would jeopardise her aviation security clearance. Judge Bidois was satisfied that there were significant impacts on her prospects of…

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 Rowlings v Police

Details

AGLC: Rowlings v Police [2020] NZHC 564
Case: [2020] NZHC 564
Decision Date: 19 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Beckie Valerie Rowlings appealed against the decision of Judge Bidois, who had granted her an application for discharge without conviction in relation to the possession charge but refused her application in relation to the second charge of refusing an officer’s request for a blood specimen. The key issue before the Court was whether the Judge erred in his assessment of whether the appreciable risks of conviction were out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. The Court had to consider whether the Judge’s assessment of the gravity of the offending and consequences of conviction was correct.

The Court considered the legal principles for an application for a discharge without conviction and found that the Judge’s assessment of the gravity of the offending was not overstated. The Court held that the seriousness of the offending was elevated by the fact that Ms Rowlings provided no reason for failing the impairment test and the offending was committed while she was on bail for other offences. The Court also found that the Judge did not place insufficient weight on the consequences of a conviction, as the consequences relied on primarily related to Ms Rowlings’ desire to become an air hostess. The Court held that the difficulty for Ms Rowlings was that apart from identifying the conviction on her criminal record as a potential obstacle to passing her security screening with the Aviation Security Service, she was not able to identify further specific circumstances to justify a discharge without conviction. The Court held that the specific details of the offending should be closely examined by the relevant aviation authorities, and the existence of a conviction of this sort ought not, in the Court’s view, to result in an automatic and immediate rejection without further inquiry.

The Court concluded that the Judge did not err in his assessment of whether the appreciable risks of conviction were out of proportion to the gravity of the offence or in his application of s 107 of the Sentencing Act 2002 more generally. The Court held that the result was correct and dismissed the appeal.

Final orders were not explicitly stated in the text. However, the Court dismissed the appeal, meaning that the Judge’s decision to refuse Ms Rowlings’ application for a discharge without conviction in relation to her second charge - refusing an officer’s request for a blood specimen - was upheld.

Orders