Taylor v Police - [2020] NZHC 1344

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2020-443-9

[2020] NZHC 1344

BETWEEN
MONIQUE ANNE TAYLOR

Appellant

AND

THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 3 June 2020

Counsel:

Ms Taylor in person G N Milne

Judgment:

16 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] Ms Taylor appeals a reparation order made in the District Court in 2019, when she was discharged without conviction for two charges of wilful damage.1 She was ordered to pay $4,850.13 for damage to her former partner’s car, $400 excess for damage to the former partner’s father’s car and court costs of $130 on each charge.

[2] Ms Taylor appeals, out of time, the reparation order of $4,850.13, on the grounds that it is causing her undue hardship and/or her circumstances are exceptional, such that the order should not have been made.2 Ms Taylor accepts the $400 excess payment and the court costs. In addition, Ms Taylor seeks cancellation of the sentence of reparation under s 38A(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act).

1 New Zealand Police v Taylor [2019] NZDC 4125.
2 Sentencing Act 2002, s 12.

TAYLOR v THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 1344 [16 June 2020]

[3] This judgment deals first with whether reparation in the circumstances was appropriate and secondly, the application under s 38A of the Act seeking cancellation of the reparation order.

Background

[4] Ms Taylor had been in a relationship her former partner for about 12 years, which ended nearly a year before the events occurred. There have been three reported previous family harm incidents between Ms Taylor and her former partner. Ms Taylor has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from an alleged assault by her former partner. Ms Taylor entered guilty pleas on the following fact summary and has no relevant previous convictions.

[5] On Monday 26 November 2018, Ms Taylor was at the address of her former partner and his parents. She had texted him during the day and when the messages went unanswered she sent a slew of further messages over several hours, the contents of which were negative towards him but not threatening. When he did not respond, she began calling his family and left abusive voice messages. Her former partner went to his parents’ address to make sure they were safe after Ms Taylor had called them. She arrived there shortly after. The summary of facts describes her as agitated and that she screamed for him to come out of the house. She approached the front door and started banging on it and tried to open it. When she could not get in, she moved around the exterior of the house.

[6] A neighbour tried to intervene but this enraged Ms Taylor further and she kicked a car parked in the driveway (her former partner’s father’s car), damaging the panels. This resulted in the first charge of wilful damage.3 Another neighbour arrived and was able to move Ms Taylor…

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 Taylor v Police

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Police [2020] NZHC 1344
Case: [2020] NZHC 1344
Decision Date: 16 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Monique Taylor appeals a reparation order made by the District Court against her for wilful damage. The appeal is brought under s 311 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The reparation order is for $4,850.13, payable to her former partner, with weekly instalments of $20. Taylor accepts a $400 excess payment for damage to her former partner’s father’s car and the two court-imposed fines of $130 each. Taylor appeals the reparation order on the grounds that it is causing her undue hardship and/or her circumstances are exceptional, such that the order should not have been made. She also seeks cancellation of the sentence of reparation under s 38A of the Sentencing Act 2002. The New Zealand Police oppose the appeal on the basis that the hardship experienced by Taylor as a result of the reparation order does not reach the level of “undue hardship” nor are her circumstances “special”.

The court finds that the order for reparation was appropriate in the circumstances and dismisses the appeal. The court finds that the order for reparation was appropriate in the circumstances and dismisses the appeal. The order for reparation was imposed on the basis of a quote obtained on 28 November 2018 from a panel beater noting that the total cost to repair the damage to her former partner’s vehicle was $4850.13. The Judge did not order a reparation report as it appears that the Court was satisfied as to the amount of reparation that the offender should pay and did not consider that a report was necessary. The court found that the Judge was required by s 12 to impose an order of reparation and did so on the evidence before the Court. The court finds that an application for cancellation of the reparation order should be made to the District Court where sentencing occurred. The court directs that Taylor’s s 38A application to this Court is referred to the District Court accordingly.

The application for leave to appeal out of time is granted. The appeal is dismissed. Taylor’s s 38A application for cancellation of the reparation order is referred to the District Court for determination.

Orders