Wicks v Police

[2020] NZHC 505

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2019-412-45

[2020] NZHC 505

JAMES DAVID WICKS

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

On the papers:

Counsel:

R Smith for Appellant

C E R Power for Respondent

Judgment:

13 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Background

[1]James David Wicks (James) has a brother called Keith Wicks (Keith).

[2]                On 12 March 2019 in the District Court at Dunedin, Keith was convicted for the offence of driving while his licence was suspended or revoked (Land Transport Act 1998 ss 32(1)(c) and 32(3)), was fined $400 and disqualified from driving for six months. However, at the time he was apprehended, Keith had identified himself as James. Therefore, it was James who was charged. Keith appeared at Court still pretending to be James and was sentenced under James’ name.

[3]James was not in any way culpable for this piece of deception.

WICKS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 505 [13 March 2020]

[4]                On 9 August 2019, Keith was convicted and sentenced on charges including attempting to pervert the course of justice (CRN 19012001713) and giving false details as to driver identity (CRN 19012001712) relating to this deception.

[5]                The Police accept that James was innocent of the offence of driving while his licence was suspended or revoked in respect of which a conviction was entered.

The appeal

[6]                James has appealed the conviction entered against his name. However, the notice of appeal was filed on 19 December 2019 well outside the 20 working days provided for by s 231 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act).

[7]                This Court has the power to extend the time allowed for the filing of a notice of application for leave to appeal. James has applied to do that, and the Police have no objection. Accordingly, I grant James leave to appeal.1

[8]                Section 232(2)(c) of the Act provides that the Court must allow an appeal if satisfied in any case that a miscarriage of justice has occurred for any reason.

[9]                I am satisfied that a miscarriage of justice has occurred in this case. James was not complicit in the actions of Keith in using James’ name. He was ignorant that this had occurred and as soon as he became aware he took appropriate steps to appeal the conviction.

[10]            Where the Court is satisfied that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, it may allow the appeal and set aside the conviction.2 I do so in this case and direct that a judgment of acquittal be entered in James’ favour pursuant to s 233(3)(a) of the Act.

1      Section 231(3) Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

2      Section 233 Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

[11]            As this judgment now fully and finally disposes of the appeal, the hearing date of 10:00 am on 2 June 2020 is vacated.

Churchman J

Solicitors:

RPB Law, Dunedin for Respondent

cc:        R Smith, Barrister, Montrose Chambers, Invercargill