Legal Research
Cases
Steedman v Police

Steedman v Police

Case [2023] NZHC 1617 27 June 2023

Jurisdiction

Constitutional Validity

Separation of Powers

Statutory Interpretation

Limitation Periods

Administrative Law

Constitutional Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2022-483-26

[2023] NZHC 1617

BETWEEN
TINA AROHA STEEDMAN

Appellant

AND

THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 9 March 2023

Appearances:

S K Green for Appellant

J C H Liu and J J Harvey for Respondent

Judgment:

27 June 2023

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] On 18 July 2022, Ms Tina Steedman (the appellant) was convicted by Judge Krebs in the Taihape District Court of an offence under s 26(1) of the COVID-
19 Public Health Response Act 2020 (the Act).1 On 21 October 2022, she was
sentenced by Judge Krebs, who concluded that the matter could be dealt with by way of conviction and discharge.2

[2] Ms Steedman now appeals both her conviction and sentence. She says that the District Court made errors of law in determining whether her exercise of certain fundamental rights could be taken into account when considering the offending. She says that the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are capable of being read into orders made under the Act so as to excuse any criminal liability. She contends that the Judge should have discharged her without conviction pursuant to ss 106 and 107 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

1 Police v Ngarimu [2022] NZDC 13518. [Results Judgment].
2 Police v Steedman [2022] NZDC 21075. [Sentencing Judgment].

STEEDMAN v THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 1617 [27 June 2023]

[3] Ms Steedman’s appeal is opposed. The Police (the respondent) submit that the text of the relevant order made under the Act cannot properly be interpreted to exempt criminal liability, and the limits imposed on Ms Steedman’s rights were justified in a free and democratic society. The Police say that the general consequences of the conviction were not outweighed by the gravity of the offence.

[4]For the reasons set out below, I dismiss the appeal.

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic and related legislation

[5] The circumstances and effect of the COVID-19 pandemic are well known, and no purpose is served by repeating them here. I will confine the background relevant to this appeal to the relevant circumstances and legislation that led to the filing of charges against Ms Steedman and her co-defendants.

[6] The Act was passed on 13 May 2020. The purpose of the Act is to support a public health response to COVID-19 that:3

(a)prevents, and limits the risk of, the outbreak or spread of COVID-19 (taking into account the infectious nature and potential for asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19); and

(b)avoids, mitigates, or remedies the actual or potential adverse effects of the COVID-19 outbreak (whether direct or indirect); and

(c)is co-ordinated, orderly, and proportionate; and

(d)allows social, economic, and other factors to be taken into account where it is relevant to do so; and

(e)is economically sustainable; and

3 COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, s 4.

(f)has enforceable measures, in addition to the relevant voluntary measures and public health and other guidance that also support that…

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 Steedman v Police

Details

AGLC: Steedman v Police [2023] NZHC 1617
Case: [2023] NZHC 1617
Decision Date: 27 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Tina Aroha Steedman, the appellant, was convicted of breaching a COVID-19 order by travelling from Taihape to Auckland for a political protest. The appellant appealed both her conviction and sentence. The High Court was required to determine whether the District Court made any error of law that constituted a miscarriage of justice, and whether the appellant's conviction should be discharged without conviction. The Court found that the District Court did not make any error of law and dismissed the appeal.

The Court examined the appellant's arguments that her rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 could be read into the COVID-19 order to excuse any criminal liability. The Court concluded that the District Court's reasoning and the approach in Borrowdale were appropriate, and that the limitations on the appellant's right to freedom of peaceful assembly under section 16 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 were justified in a free and democratic society. Therefore, it was not necessary or possible to read into the order a proviso that criminal liability under section 26(1) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is excluded if a person who has breached an order does so for the purpose of political protest.

The Court also found that the appellant failed to provide evidence that the consequences of a conviction were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. Without more, the Court considered that the effect of conviction had been negligible, and that the conviction was appropriately entered. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders