T v Police HC Auckland CRI 2008-404-214

[2009] NZHC 646

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2008-404-214

T

Appellant

v

THE POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         28 May 2009

Appearances: Appellant in person

N Whittington for respondent

Judgment:      28 May 2009

JUDGMENT OF ALLAN J

In accordance with r 11.5 I direct that the Registrar endorse this judgment with the delivery time of 4.30 pm on Thursday 28 May 2009

Solicitors/Party:

S T  , 48 May Road, Mt Roskill, Auckland

Crown Solicitor [email protected]

T V THE POLICE HC AK CRI 2008-404-214  28 May 2009

[1]      On 13 May 2008 following a summary trial, Ms T   was convicted in the Manukau District Court by Judge Andrée-Wiltens on three charges of wilful damage. On 27 June 2008 the Judge imposed concurrent sentences of 100 hours community work in respect of each charge and directed that she pay reparation totalling $1650.

[2]      On 18 March 2009 I dismissed Ms T  ’s appeal against conviction, but partially allowed her appeal against sentence by quashing the sentence of community work.

[3]      Ms T   now applies for special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.  Such appeals are governed by s 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, which provides:

144      Appeal to Court of Appeal

(1)       Either party may, with the leave of the High Court, appeal to the Court of Appeal against any determination of the High Court on any case stated for the opinion of the High Court under section 107 of this Act or against any determination of the High Court on a question of law arising in any general appeal:

Provided that, if the High Court refuses to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal may grant special leave to appeal.

(2)       A party desiring to appeal to the Court of Appeal under this section shall, within 21 days after the determination of the High Court, or within such further time as that Court may allow, give notice of his application for leave to appeal in such manner as may be directed by the rules of that Court, and the High Court may grant leave accordingly if in the opinion of that Court the question of law involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its  general  or  public  importance  or  for  any  other  reason,  ought  to  be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.

[4]      This Court may grant leave only if it is of the opinion that a question of law involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.

[5]      Ms T   was convicted of intentionally damaging three motor cars owned by staff of a mental health facility where her teenage son was being cared for.  Major differences of opinion had arisen between her and the staff as to the quality of their

oversight.  Against that background, she smashed the windows of three vehicles with a hammer.

[6]      Ms T   accepts that she used the hammer to damage the vehicles, but she does not accept that in so doing she was acting wilfully, for the purposes of the criminal law.  In effect, her argument is that she ought to be excused from criminal liability by  reason  of  her  motives.    The  argument  is,  of  course,  unsustainable. Ms T   has failed to identify any question of law which might qualify for the grant of leave.

[7]      Her application for leave is accordingly dismissed.

C J Allan J