Tiller v The King - [2023] NZHC 1050

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-490

[2023] NZHC 1050

BETWEEN
JOEL MORRISON TILLER

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 8 December 2023

Appearances:

Appellant in person

H J Bell for Respondent

Judgment:

15 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 December 2023 at 10 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland

Copy to:
Mr J M Tiller (self-represented)

TILLER v R [2023] NZHC 1050 [15 December 2023]

[1] Mr Tiller appeals against the entering of convictions for two charges of contravening a protection order (one of which was representative), and one charge of resisting arrest. He also appeals against the sentence of 12 months’ supervision on all charges.

[2] Mr Tiller was sentenced by Judge K Lummis on 6 September 2023, after he pleaded guilty to the charges.1 On appeal, Mr Tiller continues to seek a discharge without conviction.

Factual background

[3] The offending relates to two different protection orders that were explained to Mr Tiller at the time the documents were served on him by police:

(a)A protection order on behalf of the first complainant (with whom Mr Tiller was previously in a relationship).

(b)A protection order on behalf of the second complainant (with whom Mr Tiller has a nine-year-old child).

[4] The offending involved threatening phone calls and demeaning messages to those two women in breach of the terms of the protection orders.

[5]In respect of the first complainant:

(a)On 13 January 2021, she received three text messages from an unknown number, including comments of a sexual nature.

(b)On 9 August 2021, Mr Tiller called the first complainant and spoke with her for approximately 11 minutes, some of which was recorded. In that call, Mr Tiller asked her to drop the protection order, and stated that it “would mean nothing” if she did not (this was understood as a threat). The call was followed up by two text messages from the same number.

1 R v Tiller [2023] NZDC 19823.

(c)On 18 August 2021, the first complainant received a call from the same number but did not answer.

[6]In respect of the second complainant:

(a)On 14 July 2021, she received a call from an unknown number, in which Mr Tiller said, “don’t you talk to my daughter”.

[7] The events leading to the charge for resisting arrest occurred in the early evening of 16 March 2022. Police pulled over Mr Tiller while he was driving in Mt Albert. He was informed that he was under arrest for breaching a court-imposed bail condition. Mr Tiller said: “No, I’m not under arrest”. He refused to turn off his engine and step out of the vehicle. Instead, he drove away and did not stop, despite police following with red and blue lights flashing and sirens sounding. Police eventually cornered the vehicle at a residential address. Mr Tiller still refused to exit 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 Tiller v The King

Details

AGLC: Tiller v The King [2023] NZHC 1050
Case: [2023] NZHC 1050
Decision Date: 15 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Joel Morrison Tiller appeals against the entry of convictions for two charges of contravening a protection order and one charge of resisting arrest, as well as the sentence of 12 months' supervision. The appeal hinges on whether the sentencing judge made a material error in entering a conviction and whether the consequences of the convictions are out of proportion to the gravity of the offending. The legal principles governing such appeals require the court to consider the gravity of the particular offence, the direct and indirect consequences of conviction, and whether these consequences are out of proportion to the gravity of the offence.

The court found that the offending, which involved persistent and repetitive threats, sexual and demeaning comments, and insults to the complainants in breach of protection orders, was moderately serious. The court emphasised the psychological harm caused to the complainants and the importance of upholding the integrity of protection orders. The court further found that the consequences of a conviction, including difficulties in employment and travel, were appropriate and did not outweigh the gravity of the offending. The sentence of 12 months' supervision was considered appropriate for the rehabilitation and reintegration of the offender, with conditions addressing drug and alcohol use, non-association with the complainants, and provision for any counselling and treatment options that may be appropriate.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the convictions and sentence are upheld. The court found no miscarriage of justice and no error in the judge's application of the principles found in section 107 of the Sentencing Act. The sentence of 12 months' supervision was also found to be appropriate and not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Orders