Stanton v Police - [2016] NZCA 561

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA286/2016
[2016] NZCA 561

BETWEEN	LEWIS REGINALD STANTON Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE First Respondent
AND	DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Second Respondent

Hearing:	16 November 2016
Court:	Winkelmann, Duffy and Whata JJ
Counsel:	S J Zindel and S M Barclay for Applicant A J Ewing for Respondents
Judgment:	29 November 2016 at 4 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Whata J)

Mr Stanton was fined numerous times for parking his horse and cart in breach of a Nelson bylaw. He accumulated $80,000 in fines and did not pay any of them. He was convicted by Judge Zohrab for default in payment of the fines and sentenced to 400 hours’ community work. Mr Stanton did not comply with the community work order. Judge Ruth convicted and sentenced him to 21 days’ imprisonment for this breach.[1] Separately, Mr Stanton was charged and convicted for obstructing a police officer by Judge Tompkins.[2]
[1]Department of Corrections v Stanton [2016] NZDC 1284 at [2].
[2]Police v Stanton DC Nelson CRI-2015-042-1152, 13 November 2015 at [53].
An appeal to the High Court on the three convictions was rejected by Ellis J.[3] Mr Stanton now seeks leave to bring a second appeal to this Court. He focuses on the latter two convictions and seeks to argue that:
(a)Judge Ruth (and Ellis J) erred by not affording Mr Stanton an opportunity to present a defence to the breach of community work order based on a challenge to the legality of the parking fines; and
(b)Judge Tompkins (and Ellis J) did not have a proper basis for finding that Mr Stanton obstructed the police.

Jurisdiction

[3]Stanton v Police [2016] NZHC 993.

The jurisdiction of this Court to grant leave for a second appeal is well settled. The appeal must involve a matter of general or public importance and/or be necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice.[4] Leave will not be granted where the proposed appeal challenges a factual assessment specific to the circumstances of the case or the application of settled law to the facts.[5]

Assessment

[4]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 237(2) and 253(3).

[5]See Struthers v R [2016] NZCA 278 at [10]; and McAllister v R [2014] NZCA 175, [2014] 2 NZLR 764 at [36].

The leave application relates to two separate convictions — those entered by Judge Ruth and Judge Tompkins. We propose to address Mr Stanton’s application by reference to each of those matters.

Breach of community work

Prosecution for non-payment of parking fines is subject to the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 (SPA). In relevant part the SPA provides as follows:
(a)Section 21 stipulates the procedure for serving and challenging, by way of a request for a hearing, any infringement notice. Eventually, if the subject of the notice takes no action, under s 21 an order for payment will be deemed to have been made by a…

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 Stanton v Police

Details

AGLC: Stanton v Police [2016] NZCA 561
Case: [2016] NZCA 561
Decision Date: 29 November 2016 at 4 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stanton v Police involved Lewis Reginald Stanton, who was fined numerous times for parking his horse and cart in breach of a Nelson bylaw, accumulating $80,000 in fines, none of which he paid. He was convicted by Judge Zohrab for default in payment of the fines and sentenced to 400 hours’ community work, a sentence he did not comply with. For this breach, Judge Ruth convicted and sentenced him to 21 days’ imprisonment. Separately, Stanton was charged and convicted for obstructing a police officer by Judge Tompkins. Stanton's appeal to the High Court on the three convictions was rejected by Ellis J. Stanton sought leave to bring a second appeal to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, focusing on the latter two convictions and arguing that the judges erred in not allowing him to present a defence to the breach of the community work order based on a challenge to the legality of the parking fines, and that the judge did not have a proper basis for finding that Stanton obstructed the police.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to grant leave for a second appeal, and whether the leave application related to a matter of general or public importance or was necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The court also had to consider whether Stanton's defence based on reasonable excuse had merit, and whether there was a proper basis on the evidence for the findings that Stanton was guilty of obstruction.

The court held that the appeal must involve a matter of general or public importance and/or be necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The court held that leave would not be granted where the proposed appeal challenged a factual assessment specific to the circumstances of the case or the application of settled law to the facts. The court found that the underlying validity of the Council's conduct could not provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with the community work order in this case, as Stanton had the opportunity to challenge the validity of the fines in the infringement notice proceedings but did not do so. The court also found that there was a proper basis on the evidence for the findings that Stanton was guilty of obstruction.

The application for leave to bring a second appeal was declined. The Court of Appeal held that the leave application related to two separate convictions and that the appeal did not involve a matter of general or public importance or was necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The court found that there was no merit in Stanton's defence based on reasonable excuse and that there was a proper basis on the evidence for the findings that Stanton was guilty of obstruction.

Orders