Stanton v The Queen

[2015] NZHC 958

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-442-04 [2015] NZHC 958

BETWEEN

LEWIS REGINALD STANTON

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	31 March 2015
Counsel:	S J Zindel for appellant J M Webber for respondent
Judgment:	7 May 2015

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

[1]      In form, this was an appeal against a conviction for refusal to carry out a sentence of community work, and the sentence on that conviction of two months’ imprisonment.  In substance, it was a somewhat impassioned plea for recognition of Mr Stanton as an indigent deserving of different treatment by the authorities, and for recognition of his claim that he is being harassed by the Nelson City Council (NCC).

Factual background

[2]      By early 2014, Mr Stanton had amassed very significant fines as a result of infringement notices issued by NCC.  The fines exceeded $50,000.  Given his refusal to pay the fines, they were remitted by the Nelson District Court on 19 March 2014 and in substitution he was sentenced to 400 hours’ community work.   Mr Stanton made it clear to the Probation Officer who would have supervised his sentence that he would not comply with any form of community work.  He invited a charge to be laid against him for breach of the community work sentence.  Mr Stanton refused to report for work between 20 March and 8 May 2014, which led to the charge of

breach of community work being laid.

STANTON v R [2015] NZHC 958 [7 May 2015]

[3]      Mr Stanton defended the charge, but was convicted after a Judge alone trial on 16 October 2014.  Subsequently on 12 December 2014, he was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment.1    Despite having served the sentence imposed, Mr Stanton still pursued his appeal against the conviction and sentence.

Arguments on appeal

[4]      The  majority  of  Mr Zindel’s  arguments  comprised  criticisms  of  NCC’s alleged  harassment  of  Mr Stanton.    Mr Zindel  submitted  that  NCC  should  treat Mr Stanton  as  an  exception,  and  tolerate  him  occupying  central  Nelson  streets, despite his inability or refusal to pay parking fees like all other users.   Mr Zindel described Mr Stanton as a man who lives an indigent lifestyle by choice, but needs to be in central Nelson to canvass for financial support from his supporters and to advance his various forms of protest against bureaucracy.   Mr Zindel reviewed a lengthy history of colourful interactions between Mr Stanton and NCC officers in relation to the parking of his horse and cart.  Mr Zindel likened Mr Stanton to a turtle or a snail, in that he must take his cart with him as it contains all his personal effects as well as being his home and mode of transport.

[5]      As  Mr Webber  pointed  out,  pleas  on  these  topics  are  at  least  two  steps removed from the correctness of the conviction and sentence being appealed.  The elements of the charge of breach of community work were clearly made out.   No procedural or substantive errors were identified in the course of the defended hearing or the Judge’s reasons for his decision.

[6]      On sentencing, Judge Barry took into account:

(a)       that   the   appellant   was   unable   to   nominate   an   address   for   a community-based electronically monitored sentence;

(b)      that fines are not feasible;

(c)       that   the   Probation   Service   recommended   a   short   sentence   of imprisonment;

1      R v Stanton DC Nelson CRI-2014-042-1112, 12 December 2014.

(d)      the appellant’s refusal to pay fines or serve a sentence of community

work;

(e)      the need to achieve the purposes of deterrence, denunciation and accountability; and

(f)      that   the   appellant   had   already   served   a   two   month   term   of imprisonment on a charge of breaching a community work sentence, alongside charges for trespass and wilful damage.

[7]      The reasoning and end sentence imposed are unimpeachable.

[8]      That  is  sufficient  to  dispose  of  the  appeal  against  both  conviction  and sentence.  The essence of Mr Stanton’s complaint, namely that the Court and NCC have  declined  to  treat  him  differently  from  others,  may  be  justified  from  his emotional perspective, but is neither rationally nor legally sound.

[9]      The appeal is dismissed.

Dobson J

Solicitors:

Zindels, Nelson for appellant

Crown Solicitor, Nelson for respondent