Stanton v Police - [2016] NZHC 993

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-442-3

CRI-2016-442-4

CRI-2015-442-10 [2016] NZHC 993

BETWEEN
LEWIS REGINALD STANTON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 1 March 2016

Counsel:

S M Barclay for Appellant
S J Revell for Respondent

Judgment:

17 May 2016

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is
3 pm on the 17th day of May 2016

STANTON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 993 [17 May 2016]

[1] Mr Stanton is a well-known figure in Nelson. Until relatively recently he has travelled around Nelson in a horse and cart, in which he kept all his belongings.1
Because he supports himself through donations from the public his practice was to park the horse and cart in the central city to maximise donating opportunities. As a revenue gathering exercise, however, the practice turned out to be somewhat self- defeating because his various breaches of the Nelson City parking bylaw led to him receiving a very considerable number of infringement notices from Nelson City
Council’s parking enforcement officers.2

[2] Mr Stanton was, however, undeterred. As a result of his refusal to heed the signals the Council was sending him, the Council sought to injunct him. Mr Stanton’s defence to the Council’s application was both to challenge the application of the bylaw to his horse and cart and to challenge the validity of the bylaw itself. He also submitted that the bylaw should be interpreted consistently with his rights and freedoms under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

[3] Mr Stanton’s defences did not find judicial favour; an injunction against him was granted by the District Court.3 On appeal to the High Court, Goddard J recorded the District Court ’s reasons for rejecting Mr Stanton’s defences as follows:4

(i) Mr Stanton’s cart falls well within the ambit of the definition of a vehicle as set out in cl 3.1 of the bylaw. The rules as set out in sch 5, and despite the use of the word “car”, apply to all vehicles, including Mr Stanton’s cart.

(ii) The parking bylaw does not breach Mr Stanton’s rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association or freedom of movement as guaranteed under the NZBORA. Personal inconvenience does not equate with a restriction on freedom, because:

·Mr Stanton’s right to freedom of expression is not restricted by the bylaw. The act of parking his cart in breach of the bylaw is not

1      Mr Stanton’s horse has since been taken by the SPCA.
2    Many of the infringement notices were issues under the Parking and Vehicle Control
Bylaw 2011. That bylaw was made under the Local Government Act 2002 and the Land Transport Act 1998. Other infringement notices were issued for vehicle and licensing offences and for exceeding the maximum time allowed for continuous parking under a free parking scheme introduced by the Council on 26 June 2014.
3      Nelson City Council v Stanton DC Nelson CRI-2014-042-000246, 17 October 2014.
4      Stanton…

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] NZHC 993
Case: [2016] NZHC 993
Decision Date: 17 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Stanton, is a well-known figure in Nelson who travelled around in a horse and cart, parking it in the central city to maximise donations. His parking practices led to numerous infringement notices from the Nelson City Council. Mr Stanton challenged the infringement notices and the bylaw in the District Court, arguing that it violated his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). The District Court found against him, and the appeal to the High Court was also unsuccessful. Mr Stanton has not paid the fines, leading to further proceedings. He appeals his conviction for failing to pay fines and his subsequent sentence of community work, his conviction for breaching community work, and his conviction for obstructing a police officer. The court dismissed all three appeals. In the first appeal, the court held that the appeal was filed out of time and the validity of the fines could not be challenged at the s 88AE hearing. In the second appeal, the court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to allow Mr Stanton to give irrelevant and inadmissible evidence. In the third appeal, the court held that the police officer was acting reasonably when he told Mr Stanton not to re-enter his tent, and Mr Stanton made a choice not to comply with the instruction. All three appeals were dismissed.

Orders