Wells v Police - [2016] NZHC 1235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2016-488-9 [2016] NZHC 1235

BETWEEN
TEEGAN WELLS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 7 June 2016

Counsel:

S K Ellis for Appellant
M A Jarman-Taylor for Respondent

Judgment:

9 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 June 2016 at pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

WELLS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 1235 [9 June 2016]

[1] The appellant, Ms Wells, pleaded guilty and was convicted in the District Court on one charge of assault with intent to injure and sentenced to 40 hours’ community work. The Judge refused Ms Wells’ application for a discharge without conviction. She now appeals against that refusal.

Factual background

[2] Ms Wells is eighteen years old. She is a single mother with a three year old daughter. At about 12:30 am on Sunday 26 April 2015, Ms Wells was at a relative’s birthday party. She walked up to the victim, Ms Pere, kicked her three times on her left leg, and when Ms Pere tried to run away Ms Wells grabbed Ms Pere by the hair, pulled her back and punched her three times in the face. Ms Pere reported soreness to her face and left knee. In explanation Ms Wells said that she had assaulted Ms Pere because she had been causing one of Ms Wells’ cousins, who was Ms Pere’s boyfriend, to try to harm himself. Some time before the birthday party the cousin had tried to hang himself. This provoked a strong reaction from Ms Wells because in
2012 when she was still at secondary school three students at her school had committed suicide within a matter of months, which had been very traumatic for her.

[3] Ms Wells has no previous convictions and has not received Police diversion in the past. She was assessed as being suitable and willing to attend a restorative justice conference, but the victim was unwilling to go through with the conference.

District Court judgment

[4] The application for a discharge without conviction was opposed by the Police. Judge McDonald assessed the gravity of the offending as being “serious” as it involved “two quite separate assaults”, but did note that it occurred in the context of emotional upheaval following the suicides of three young people at Ms Wells’ school.

[5] To support the application for a discharge without conviction Ms Wells had provided the District Court with a letter from the Deputy Director of Arts, Commerce and Applied Sciences at NorthTec where she is presently studying. The

letter confirms that Ms Wells is enrolled in a Bachelor of Applied Social Service at NorthTec and that part of the degree requirements are to complete two fieldwork placements in two social work agencies. The placements require Ms Wells to satisfy the Social Workers Registration Board’s “Fit and Proper” policy which includes consideration of any criminal convictions. The Deputy Director states 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.

Continue reading Wells v Police

Details

AGLC: Wells v Police [2016] NZHC 1235
Case: [2016] NZHC 1235
Decision Date: 9 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal by Ms Teegan Wells against the refusal of a discharge without conviction by the District Court. Ms Wells had pleaded guilty to one charge of assault with intent to injure and was sentenced to 40 hours of community work. The District Court had refused her application for a discharge without conviction. Ms Wells appealed this decision on the grounds that the consequences of the conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. The court needed to determine whether the direct and indirect consequences of conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. The court found that the offending was not as serious as the District Court had found, and that the consequences of conviction would indeed be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction imposed in the District Court was set aside.

Orders