T v Police HC Auckland Cri-2009-404-408

[2010] NZHC 163

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2009-404-000408

BETWEEN  T

Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         23 February 2010

Appearances: Ms F Cuncannon for the Respondent

Judgment:      23 February 2010

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PRIESTLEY J

Counsel/Solicitors:

Ms F Cuncannon, Meredith Connell & Co, P O Box 2213, Auckland 1140. Fax: [phone]

Copy to:

A R T  , Nga Kautiaki O Te Ture, C/- 1B Radiata Street, Fairview Downs, Hamilton 3214

T V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC AK CRI-2009-404-000408  23 February 2010

[1]      The appellant, Mr A T  , is currently aged 41.

[2]       I note he is described as a security guard by occupation. His list of criminal convictions extends over two pages, there being clusters in the 1980s and again in the mid 1990s for various offences including assaults, possessing offensive weapons, disorderly behaviour, burglaries, and other matters.

[3]      He was charged in the Waitakere District Court in May 2009 with possessing an offensive weapon under s 202A of the Crimes Act 1961.  The circumstances of his offending were that he became involved in an altercation with his former partner, grabbed a samurai sword with which he threatened to commit suicide, and inflicted a minor cut on his abdomen.  His former partner left the address and he went out to the carport. Upon returning the partner contacted the police. They arrived. He began to threaten, swear and yell at the police brandishing at them his samurai sword. He ignored sensible instructions to drop it, and continued to swear and remonstrate.  As a result, and justifiably so, he was tasered.

[4]      He appeared before Judge Tremewan for sentence on 1 July 2009 having pleaded guilty. The Judge, in a thoughtful and principled sentence, discussed his possible psychiatric history. She imposed a sentence of 12 months supervision. This sentence of course was designed to assist the appellant.

[5]      For  some  reason,  on  23  November  2009,  considerably  out  of  time,  the appellant lodged this appeal. On its face it appears to challenge the Judge’s sentence. Ms Cuncannon has made some discreet inquiries. She submits that perhaps the appellant filed the appeal in a misguided way.  He has apparently remonstrated, and strongly so, with his probation officer who requires him to attend a course.

[6]      Assuming that the Department of Corrections acts in a prompt and focused way, the appellant should be prosecuted for breach of supervision conditions. Alternatively the appellant, as Ms Cuncannon understands it, is entitled to seek a review of conditions imposed by the probation officer in the District Court.   The appellant’s handwritten notice of appeal suggests that maybe that is what he has in mind.

[7]      The appellant would be well advised to bear in mind that his behaviour was alarming and disgraceful; that the Judge’s sentence was designed to assist him and in particular to address various behavioural concerns which he had; and that a consequence of the sentence imposed on him is that he must do as he is told by the probation officer.   I say no more on this topic in case it becomes a matter for the District Court.

[8]      Having lodged his appeal, the appellant filed no submissions despite being advised by the Court registry what was required of him. A letter was dispatched to him on 22 January 2010 advising him of the hearing date this afternoon. He has not turned up. He has been called.

[9]      There being no appearance, and in any event the appeal in my judgment having absolutely no merit, it is dismissed.

.......................................… Priestley J