Van Houten v Police - [2019] NZHC 3266

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2019-488-000039

[2019] NZHC 3266

BETWEEN
DANIEL PAUL VAN HOUTEN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 11 December 2019

Appearances:

Appellant in person

S Patia for the Respondent

Judgment:

12 December 2019

JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday 12 December 2019 at 10.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors:
S Patia, Marsden Woods Inskip Smith (Crown Solicitors), Whangarei Copy to the Appellant

VAN HOUTEN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3266 [12 December 2019]

Introduction

[1] Mr Van Houten seeks leave to appeal four convictions, entered on 24 March 2010 being:

(a)Two counts of obtaining by deception.1

(b)Two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm after revocation of firearms licence.2

[2] These convictions were entered following a guilty plea in the District Court at Whangarei on 26 February 2010.

[3] On 24 March 2010 Mr Van Houten was sentenced to 12 months’ supervision with a direction that he surrender the relevant firearms if they remained in his possession.

Background

[4] The background to the charges, as recorded in the Summary of Facts, is that on 30 December 2006 Mr Van Houten was personally served with a notice revoking his firearms licence. He was required to hand it over but claimed he had lost it.

[5] Between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2009, he purchased from a Kaitaia firearms dealer a 0.308 semi-automatic rifle, having produced his firearms licence to the dealer.

[6] On 2 October 2009 he likewise purchased from a Whangarei dealer a M14.308 semi-automatic rifle. Again, he produced his firearms licence.

[7]The Summary of Facts further records his explanation in terms that:

He was allowed to and was going to have firearms and no one would stop him.

1 Sections 240(1)(a) and 241(b) of the Crimes Act 1961.
2 Section 49a of the Arms Act 1983.

[8] It also notes that he refused to reveal the location of either his firearms or firearms licence.

[9] Significantly, the pre-sentence report states that he “generally agreed with the Police Summary of Facts as presented” and said:

I went and got a gun and then went to get my firearms licence back but they said I couldn’t get it back … I felt hard done by from the cops … I have got a hunting and pest control certificate so I just rocked on up and got some more guns.

[10] Accordingly, there is no suggestion that as at February/March 2010 Mr Van Houten disputed that:

(a)he had been served with the revocation notice; or

(b)he had produced his firearms licence post-revocation with the intention of acquiring firearms.

Appeal jurisdiction

[11] The appellant’s notice of appeal is dated 12 November 2019. It acknowledged that it was out of time. Subsequently on 25 November 2019 he filed an Application for Leave.

[12] The relevant convictions arise from a proceeding that…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Van Houten v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NZHC 3266
Decision Date: 12 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered an application for leave to appeal out of time by Daniel Paul Van Houten, who sought to challenge four convictions entered in the District Court at Whangarei in 2010. The charges included two counts of obtaining by deception and two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm after revocation of a firearms licence. Van Houten was sentenced to 12 months' supervision, with a direction to surrender the relevant firearms if they remained in his possession. Van Houten argued that he had been wrongly convicted and sentenced due to a failure in the police records to acknowledge the service of the notice revoking his firearms licence. The court assessed the application under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, considering the interests of justice and the strength of the proposed appeal against the delay and prejudice to the Crown. The court found that Van Houten had pleaded guilty to the charges, accepting the facts that led to the revocation of his licence, and there was no evidence of a genuine misunderstanding or mistake. Furthermore, the court noted that Van Houten did not provide an adequate explanation for the extensive delay in bringing the appeal, and the police were significantly prejudiced by the delay. The court concluded that the appeal had reduced practical utility given that the period of supervision had expired, and the public interest in the finality of justice was significant. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal out of time.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the substantial delay in bringing the appeal, the absence of a manifest injustice given the guilty pleas and the consistency of Van Houten's statements with the facts, and the significant prejudice to the police due to the delay. The court balanced the interests of Van Houten against the broader societal interest in the finality of judicial decisions and found that the appeal did not meet the threshold for being considered in exceptional circumstances. The court emphasized the importance of adherence to time limits for appeals and the need for a compelling explanation for any significant delay. Given these factors, the court dismissed the application, reinforcing the principle that appeals out of time are only entertained in exceptional circumstances where the interests of justice so require.

Orders