Thompson v Police - [2013] NZHC 1369

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-485-000027 [2013] NZHC 1369

BETWEEN KODY PIRERE THOMPSON Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 11 June 2013

Counsel: Appellant in person
B A Tompkins for Respondent

Judgment: 11 June 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] On 23 March 2013 Mr Thompson pleaded guilty in the Masterton District Court to a charge brought under s 48 of the Arms Act 1983. The charge alleged that, without reasonable excuse, Mr Thompson fired a firearm at a home in Masterton. Judge Broadmore convicted Mr Thompson and fined him $200. He appeals that sentence.

[2] Mr Thompson’s appeal is brought under s 121(3) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. Accordingly, his appeal can only be allowed if I am satisfied either:

(1) that the sentence imposed by Judge Broadmore was “clearly excessive ... or inappropriate”; or

THOMPSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 1369 [11 June 2013]

(2) that substantial facts relating to the offence or the offender’s character
or personal history were not before the District Court Judge when he imposed sentence.

Facts

[3] On Saturday 16 March 2013 Mr Thompson and some of his friends and relatives were drinking at a home in Workshop Road, Masterton. Mr Thompson became intoxicated. He had a paintball gun with him. Mr Thompson went into the back yard of the property and started firing paintballs in the vicinity of a neighbouring house. The occupants of the house called the police.

[4] When spoken to by the police Mr Thompson said he did not deliberately aim at the house and that as he was playing a war game with his relatives and that whoever got hit by a paintball had to buy a case of beer.

Submissions

[5] Mr Thompson was represented by the duty solicitor when he pleaded guilty in the Masterton District Court. The duty solicitor invited Judge Broadmore to simply convict Mr Thompson and sentence him if he reoffended. The duty solicitor submitted that if this course of action was not acceptable a fine would be appropriate.

[6] Mr Thompson was not represented when his appeal was heard by me. However, his mother has written a submission in which she explains:

(1) that Mr Thompson’s behaviour did not warrant a criminal conviction;

(2)that the consequences of a conviction are disproportionate to Mr Thompson’s offending. In particular, Mr Thompson’s mother refers to restrictions that will be placed on Mr Thompson’s ability to travel overseas if he has a conviction under the Arms Act; and

(3) that Mr Thompson should have been discharged without conviction.

[7] Mr Thompson has a previous conviction for disorderly behaviour. That conviction was entered in December 2012. On that occasion Mr Thompson was fined $200.

Should Mr Thompson have been discharged without conviction?

[8] Judge Broadmore did not consider discharging Mr Thompson without conviction because he was not invited to do so. However, as Mr Thompson’s appeal is based on the submission that he should have been discharged without conviction…

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 Thompson v Police

Details

AGLC: Thompson v Police [2013] NZHC 1369
Case: [2013] NZHC 1369
Decision Date: 11 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Thompson v Police, the appellant, Mr. Thompson, appealed a conviction and sentence imposed by the Masterton District Court. The original conviction stemmed from Mr. Thompson firing a paintball gun at a neighbouring house while intoxicated, an act that led to a charge under section 48 of the Arms Act 1983. Mr. Thompson pleaded guilty to the charge, and the District Court imposed a fine of $200. Dissatisfied with the sentence, Mr. Thompson appealed to the High Court, contending that the sentence was excessive and that the District Court had not been aware of all relevant facts concerning his character and personal history.

The High Court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was "clearly excessive or inappropriate" or if there were substantial facts not before the District Court that would warrant a different outcome. The court considered whether discharging Mr. Thompson without conviction was appropriate under sections 106 and 107 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The key legal issue was whether the consequences of a conviction, particularly in terms of its impact on Mr. Thompson's future travel, were disproportionate to the gravity of his offending. The court noted that Mr. Thompson's actions, though irresponsible, did not pose a significant risk of harm and were more akin to the behaviour of a "stupid young larrikin."

The High Court found that the consequences of a conviction for an Arms Act offence would likely be disproportionate to the gravity of the offending. This was particularly true given the potential negative impact on Mr. Thompson's ability to travel abroad. The court concluded that had the District Court been aware of the full extent of the potential consequences, it would likely have discharged Mr. Thompson without conviction. The appeal was thus allowed, and the conviction and sentence were vacated. Mr. Thompson was discharged without conviction pursuant to section 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

Orders