Waterman v Police - [2021] NZHC 3083

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2021-425-000018

[2021] NZHC 3083

BETWEEN
JAMIE WATERMAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 15 November 2021

Appearances:

J A T Ross for the Appellant

M B Brownlie for the Respondent

Judgment:

16 November 2021

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Jamie Waterman, was sentenced by Judge Walker in the District Court to 12 months’ supervision in relation to two charges of intimidation1 and one charge of possession of an offensive weapon.2 Judge Walker made a protection order naming Mr Waterman as the respondent and his former partner (the victim) as the protected person.3 Mr Waterman appeals solely against the imposition of the protection order.

1      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a).
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(b).
3      Police v Waterman [2021] NZDC 16960.

WATERMAN v POLICE [2021] NZHC 3083 [16 November 2021]

Background

[2] On 1 August 2021, Mr Waterman was at home with his (former) partner and grandmother. At about 1.30 pm, Mr Waterman became upset that he had broken his phone screen. He left the address for a short time to calm down. When he returned he again became angry. He picked up a crowbar and proceeded to smash his own vehicle which was parked in the driveway. He threatened to smash partner’s vehicle and a caravan but decided not to follow through on those threats.

[3] When the Police arrived, Mr Waterman was in the caravan with his partner. When asked to come out he was holding the crowbar. Upon seeing the Police, he put the crowbar on the ground and was placed under arrest.

District Court decision

[4] Judge Walker canvassed the facts of the offending and referred to matters raised in the pre-sentence report before concluding that a sentence of 12 months’ supervision was appropriate in the circumstances.

[5] Mr Waterman opposed the application for a protection order that was sought on behalf of his former partner. The Police stated the victim had made a statement since Mr Waterman had breached bail. The Judge noted there had allegedly been another recent incident that involved Mr Waterman in further possessive and controlling behaviour. The victim’s view, that there was a difficult cocktail of issues involving Mr Waterman’s drug addiction and impulsive behaviour, was noted by the Judge.

[6] The Judge referred to a victim impact statement from Mr Waterman’s partner where she said there was an escalation in anger and control leading up to the incident. The Judge concluded a protection order was appropriate and made that order.

Principles on appeal

[7] Appeals against sentence are allowed as of right by s 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and must be determined in accordance with s 250 of that Act. An appeal against sentence may only be allowed by this Court if it is satisfied there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that a different sentence should be

imposed.4…

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 Waterman 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: [2021] NZHC 3083
Decision Date: 16 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jamie Waterman appealed against the imposition of a protection order by the District Court. The appellant was sentenced to 12 months’ supervision for charges of intimidation and possession of an offensive weapon. The District Court also made a protection order naming the appellant as the respondent and his former partner as the protected person. The appellant opposed the application for a protection order. The High Court was required to determine whether the District Court Judge erred in making the protection order. The Court noted that the inquiry into whether a protection order is necessary does not need to be overly refined, nor is an extensive discussion of the necessity for the order required. The Court considered the information before the Court, including the appellant's history of drug and alcohol misuse, his breach of bail, and the victim's statements indicating her fear for her safety. The Court concluded that the District Court Judge was correct to find that the protection order was necessary to ensure the safety of the victim from future violence. The Court also considered that the District Court Judge gave adequate reasons for his finding that the making of a protection order was necessary. The appellant's appeal was dismissed.

Orders