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

[2011] NZHC 2010

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