Stanton v Police - [2012] NZHC 3223

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-442-19 [2012] NZHC 3223

LEWIS REGINALD STANTON
Appellant
v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 22 November 2012

Counsel: S J Zindel for Appellant
E J Riddell for Respondent

Judgment: 30 November 2012

In accordance with r 11.5 I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is 4.15pm on the 30th day of November 2012.

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF MACKENZIE J

Background

[1] The appellant appeals against his conviction on a charge of obstruction of a footpath, under s 22(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981.

[2] The appellant has become quite well known in Nelson. As I recorded in an earlier judgment1 he lives a somewhat itinerant life travelling and camping. This

1 Stanton v New Zealand Police [2012] NZHC 1878.

STANTON V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC NEL CRI-2012-442-19 [30 November 2012]

unconventional lifestyle led to his being banned from public places within Nelson and he had other minor brushes with authority. For some time, he maintained a vigil outside the Farmers shop on Trafalgar Street, sitting there throughout each day with some placards and signs. That led to some minor incidents and complaints from passersby who apparently took exception to the appellant’s action. The City Council and police became involved. Police took the view that the appellant was obstructing the footpath. On 17 July 2012 he was warned that he was causing an obstruction and told to desist. He failed to do so and was arrested at about 3.15pm that day. He was released without charge, after a warning that a repetition of his actions would make him liable to be arrested again. On 18 July he was again at his post outside Farmers. He was again warned that he was causing an obstruction and told to desist. When he failed to do so he was arrested and subsequently charged under s 22.

[3] The appellant defended the charge, at a hearing before two Justices of the

Peace in the District Court at Nelson on 3 August 2012. In a judgment delivered on

6 August 2012, they found him guilty of the charge. He was fined $200 plus costs.

[4] The grounds of appeal are set out very fully in the notice of appeal. The essence of those is that the appellant’s actions did not constitute an obstruction of the footpath, or that, if they did, they were a legitimate exercise of his right to protest, so as to provide him with a reasonable excuse.

[5] Section 22 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 provides as follows:

Obstructing public way

(1) Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who, without reasonable excuse, obstructs any public way and, having been warned by a constable to desist,—

(a) Continues with that obstruction; or

(b) Does desist from that obstruction but subsequently obstructs that public way again, or some other public way in the same vicinity, in circumstances in which it is reasonable to deem the warning to have…

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 [2012] NZHC 3223
Case: [2012] NZHC 3223
Decision Date: 30 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Lewis Reginald Stanton, appeals against his conviction for obstruction of a footpath under s 22(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981. Stanton, who leads an itinerant lifestyle, was found to have been obstructing a footpath outside a Farmers store in Nelson. He was warned by police to desist but continued his protest, leading to his arrest and subsequent conviction. Stanton argues that his actions did not constitute an obstruction or, if they did, he had a reasonable excuse for his protest. The legal issues before the court were whether Stanton's actions unreasonably impeded normal passage along the footpath, and if so, whether they were without reasonable excuse.

The Court first assessed the nature and extent of the alleged obstruction, finding that Stanton's occupation of the footpath did not unreasonably impede normal passage. The Court noted that the footpath was wide enough to accommodate Stanton's protest without hindering pedestrian movement. The Court also considered whether Stanton's actions constituted a reasonable excuse under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Stanton argued that his protest was a lawful exercise of his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The Court held that normal passage under s 22 should be interpreted to accommodate lawful uses of the footpath, including the exercise of Bill of Rights freedoms. Given the width of the footpath and the manner in which Stanton conducted his protest, the Court found that his actions did not unreasonably impede normal passage.

The Court allowed Stanton's appeal, quashed his conviction, and paid tribute to the Justices for their clear and cogent analysis. The decision underscores the importance of balancing the rights to freedom of expression and movement in public spaces.

Orders