Scott v Department of Justice (Corrections) HC Dunedin CRI-2011-412-000038

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2011-412-000038

BETWEEN MICHAEL CRAIG SCOTT Appellant

ANDDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (CORRECTIONS)
Respondent

Hearing: 14 December 2011

Appearances: Appellant in Person
R D Smith for Respondent

Judgment: 15 December 2011

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Whata on
15 December 2011 at 11.30 a.m., pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors:
Wilkinson Adams, Crown Solicitors, PO Box 803, Dunedin 9054
Copy to:
Michael C Scott, 33 Slant Street, Carey’s Bay, Dunedin

SCOTT V DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (CORRECTIONS) HC DUN CRI-2011-412-000038 15 December
2011

[1] Michael Scott appeals against a decision of the District Court remitting

$15,477.57 in fines and substituting that with 350 hours of community work.

[2] Mr Scott says that the Court did not have jurisdiction to impose that sentence on the basis that, contrary to s 106(e) the District Court Judge did not have a statement of means completed by the defendant before imposing a sentence of community work.

[3] On 28 November Mr Scott sought an adjournment for the purposes of retaining counsel. Mr Scott was advised on 1 December 2011 that an application for an adjournment by counsel needed to be filed, failing which the matter would proceed on the hearing date of the appeal, namely 14 December 2011 at 2.15 p.m.

[4] The matter was called, Mr Scott did not appear. No application for adjournment was formally filed.

[5] I dismissed the appeal for the following reasons:

(a) Mr Scott did not attend the appeal hearing date as he was required to do; and

(b)In any event, I do not consider that Mr Scott was prejudiced in any way by the alleged non-compliance with s 106(e). Had he appeared I would have invited him to present a statement of means which would have afforded me the opportunity to consider whether or not the sentence imposed was inappropriate.

[6] In these circumstances, Mr Scott has not been prejudiced in any substantive way and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Whata J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael Craig Scott appealed against a decision of the District Court which remitted $15,477.57 in fines and substituted that with 350 hours of community work. The central issue in the appeal was whether the District Court Judge had the required statement of means completed by Scott before imposing the sentence of community work. Under section 106(e), the court must have a statement of means before substituting fines with community work. Scott argued that the absence of this statement rendered the District Court's decision invalid.

Scott sought an adjournment to retain counsel but failed to formally file an application for adjournment by the required date. Consequently, the appeal proceeded on 14 December 2011. Scott did not appear for the hearing, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. Justice Whata dismissed the appeal on two grounds: Scott's non-attendance at the hearing and the lack of substantive prejudice caused by the alleged non-compliance with section 106(e). If Scott had appeared, the judge would have invited him to present a statement of means to determine the appropriateness of the sentence. Given the circumstances, Scott had not been prejudiced in any substantive way, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established