Williams v The Queen - [2020] NZCA 666

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA537/2020
[2020] NZCA 666

BETWEEN	JOHN ALLAN WILLIAMS Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	French, Whata and Mander JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person S E Trounson for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	18 December 2020 at 9 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Mr Williams was convicted following a judge-alone trial in the District Court of a charge of intentionally obstructing a police officer.[1] Judge Gibson sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of two months.[2] Mr Williams appealed to the High Court where Wylie J dismissed his appeal against conviction but reduced the sentence from two months’ imprisonment to one month’s imprisonment.[3]
[1]Police v Williams [2020 NZDC 11463; and Summary Offences Act 1981, s 23(a).
[2]Police v Williams [2020] NZDC 11349.
[3]Williams v Police [2020] NZHC 2142 [High Court decision].
Mr Williams now seeks leave to appeal to this Court. Leave is required because it would be a second appeal.[4] The proposed appeal is against both conviction and sentence.
[4]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 237(1) and 253(1).
In a minute dated 6 October 2020, Brown J directed the application for leave was to be heard on the papers.

Background

The case has its genesis in an incident at a police traffic checkpoint. A constable stopped the vehicle Mr Williams was driving for the purposes of administering a breath screening test using a passive breath testing device. There was an argument. According to the police evidence, Mr Williams disputed the constable’s right to require him to do that. He refused to wind his window down fully (it was open a few centimetres) and became abusive. When another police sergeant repeated the request to wind down the window and Mr Williams again refused, the sergeant broke the car window and forcibly removed Mr Williams from the car.
Mr Williams was then taken to a police station where he returned a zero reading for his breath test.
Police charged him with resisting a constable in the execution of his duty under s 23 of the Summary Offences Act 1981. Despite Mr William’s objection, that charge was subsequently amended by leave at the close of evidence in the District Court to a charge of intentionally obstructing a constable under that same section.[5]

Grounds of the proposed appeal against conviction

[5]Police v Williams [2020] NZDC 11507.

Mr Williams seeks to advance several arguments in this Court:[6]
(a)Every New Zealander has the right to refuse all forms of alcohol testing except evidential blood/alcohol testing.
(b)The High Court erred in finding that the police had a right to enforce the opening of the window when the window was clearly sufficiently open for effective communication.
(c)The District Court and High Court erred in finding that the police had requested Mr Williams to undergo a breath screening test.
(d)The late amendment of the charge…

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 Williams v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Williams v The Queen [2020] NZCA 666
Case: [2020] NZCA 666
Decision Date: 18 December 2020 at 9 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Williams applied for leave to appeal his conviction and sentence for intentionally obstructing a police officer. The District Court sentenced Williams to two months' imprisonment, and the High Court reduced the sentence to one month. The Court of Appeal was asked to decide whether Williams should be granted leave to bring a second appeal, which would require exceptional circumstances given the previous appeal against conviction and sentence. Williams argued that he had a right to refuse all forms of alcohol testing, the police had no right to enforce the opening of his car window, the police had not requested him to undergo a breath screening test, and the late amendment of the charge caused a miscarriage of justice. The Court found that Williams' legal arguments were incorrect, the factual findings were supported by evidence, and the amendment of the charge did not prejudice Williams' ability to mount a defence. The Court also found that the sentence was appropriate given Williams' custodial remand at the time of sentencing. The application for leave to appeal was declined.

The Court of Appeal found that none of Williams' grounds for appeal met the high threshold for granting leave to bring a second appeal. The Court found that the police had the power to require Williams to undergo a breath screening test and that he was obliged to comply with that request. The Court also found that the factual findings made by the District Court and High Court were supported by evidence and not of general or public importance. The amendment of the charge did not prejudice Williams' ability to mount a defence as both charges arose from the same factual matrix and provision of the Summary Offences Act. The Court also found that the sentence was appropriate given Williams' custodial remand at the time of sentencing and that there was no viable alternative but to sentence him to a short term of imprisonment. The application for leave to appeal was declined.

Orders