Strickland v Police - [2013] NZHC 2704

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2013-409-000097 [2013] NZHC 2704

GUY LEO STRICKLAND

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 17 October 2013

Counsel: M J Callaghan for Mr Strickland
K J Basire for the Respondent

Judgment: 17 October 2013

JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

[1] On 9 May the appellant, Guy Strickland appeared in the District Court and entered pleas of guilty to charges of disorderly behaviour and possession of cannabis. He was represented by the duty solicitor. Judge Macdonald heard the case and entered a conviction and imposed fines of $150 on each charge, together with Court costs.

[2] No application for a discharge without conviction was made, nor was diversion discussed in open Court. The issue raised by the present appeal against conviction is whether, effectively, the clock can be turned back and I can consider the case afresh in relation to, in particular, a discharge without conviction.

[3] The appellant, who appears today, is 17 and a half years of age. He is a high school student in year 11. He will leave school at the end of the year and prior to these convictions being incurred he had commenced the process to gain entry into
the New Zealand Army. He has no previous convictions. I note that the notice of

STRICKLAND v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 2704 [17 October 2013]

appeal was not filed until 1 September 2013, and accordingly that it is out of time, a matter to which I will return shortly.

[4] The trigger for the filing of that notice of appeal was an exchange of emails between the appellant and a person in the army. He was in the process of being assessed as to his suitability for acceptance to join the New Zealand Defence Force. He revealed the fact of the convictions entered in May. The response was an email in which he was told that this would derail the process then underway, and that at the very least, there would be a stand-down period of 12 months before he could be reconsidered for admission to the army.

[5] Apparently, the policy is that previous convictions do not automatically disqualify entry, but there must be a stand-down period, as it is termed, of 12 months prior to the application under consideration, during which no convictions have been entered.

[6] Having received this advice, Mr Strickland retained counsel, promptly filed a notice of appeal and has advanced the matter in this Court on the basis of affidavit evidence concerning the consequences for him of these convictions.

[7] The offences were committed on 4 May 2013, five days before the relevant Court appearance. At 11.30 pm in Wilsons Road the appellant was involved in an incident with youths in a van. He was on his way home having spent an evening with a friend. The van pulled up, but its occupants were intending to speak to some girls who were in the vicinity. Nothing came of that. The appellant approached the…

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 Strickland v Police

Details

AGLC: Strickland v Police [2013] NZHC 2704
Case: [2013] NZHC 2704
Decision Date: 17 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Strickland v Police, the appellant, Guy Strickland, challenged his convictions for disorderly behaviour and possession of cannabis, which were entered in the District Court. Strickland's appeal focused on whether the High Court could reconsider the case for a discharge without conviction, particularly given the significant consequences of the convictions on his future military career. Strickland, a 17-year-old high school student, had no prior convictions and was in the process of applying to join the New Zealand Defence Force. After disclosing his recent convictions, he received advice that it would likely delay his application by at least 12 months, prompting him to appeal.

The central legal issues in the case were whether the High Court had jurisdiction to review the convictions under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, and whether the court could consider a discharge without conviction under the Sentencing Act. The court had to determine if the substantial facts relating to the offence and the offender were before the District Court when the sentence was imposed, and if the consequences of the conviction were disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Strickland argued that the gravity of the offence was slight, and the consequences of the conviction were severe, warranting a discharge without conviction.

The High Court found that the appeal was indeed governed by the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The court concluded that the District Court did not have the benefit of all relevant facts when imposing the sentence, specifically regarding the potential impact of the convictions on Strickland's future. The court also found that the consequences of the conviction were disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Given the relatively minor nature of the offences and the significant personal consequences for Strickland, the court deemed a discharge without conviction appropriate. The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and Strickland was discharged without conviction, subject to paying nominal court costs.

The court's final orders included quashing the convictions for disorderly behaviour and possession of cannabis, along with the imposed sentence. Strickland was discharged without conviction, subject to paying court costs of $100. This decision underscored the court's consideration of the proportionality between the offence's gravity and its consequences for the appellant.

Orders