Wilson v Police - [2015] NZHC 1428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2015-488-12 [2015] NZHC 1428

BETWEEN
MICHAEL PAUL WILSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 3 June 2015

Appearances:

Appellant in person
M B Smith for Respondent

Judgment:

23 June 2015

JUDGMENT OF KEANE J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 4pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei.

WILSON v NZ POLICE [2015] NZHC 1428 [23 June 2015]

[1] On 23 February 2015, after a hearing in the District Court, Kaikohe, at which Michael Wilson represented himself, Judge D J McDonald found him guilty of assaulting Peter Martin, a building inspector with the Far North District Council, on
12 February 2014 at the Kerikeri house he was building for himself, which

Mr Martin was there to inspect.

[2] At the hearing Mr Wilson accepted that he had ejected Mr Martin from his house. He contended that he had been justified in the force he used. Mr Martin, he said, had become a trespasser after refusing to leave and he had used no more than reasonable force to eject him. In finding the offence proved the Judge held that the force Mr Wilson had used was both unjustifiable and unreasonable.

[3] On 18 March 2015 the Judge declined Mr Wilson’s application for discharge without conviction. He held that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of Mr Wilson’s offence. He convicted Mr Wilson and fined him $1,000. Mr Wilson appeals his conviction and sentence.

[4] This appeal was first called on 6 May 2014. Asher J adjourned the appeal because counsel for the police had not received the District Court evidence transcript. Since then, as directed, further submissions have been filed on both sides as to the effect of the evidence as a whole.

Appeal grounds

[5] In appealing his conviction Mr Wilson contends first that the Judge predetermined his guilt by accepting from the outset the prosecution fact summary and by unfairly preventing him from advancing his defence, particularly when he was leading the evidence of his own witness, Brian Luke.

[6] Secondly, Mr Wilson contends, the evidence does not support the Judge’s conclusion that he ejected Mr Martin from his property unjustifiably and unreasonably. It demonstrates rather that he ejected Mr Martin only after Mr Martin had become a trespasser and that he used no more than reasonable force.

[7] Thirdly, he contends, the Judge was wrong to rule out as inadmissible hearsay evidence documents material to his defence, most especially an email from his engineer, dated 5 June 2014, in the week before the inspection, in which his engineer found the timber framing to be code compliant. That made it unnecessary, he contends, for the inspectors to make the framing inspection they made. It entitled him, as he had requested, to a pre-lining inspection.

[8] Fourthly, he contends, in denying his application for a…

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 Wilson 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: [2015] NZHC 1428
Decision Date: 23 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wilson v Police involved an appeal by Michael Paul Wilson against his conviction and sentence for assaulting a building inspector, Peter Martin. The District Court had found Wilson guilty of assaulting Martin during an inspection at Wilson's construction site. Wilson argued that the force used was justified under section 56 of the Crimes Act 1961, which allows for the use of reasonable force to prevent trespassing or remove a trespasser. The appeal raised issues about the fairness of the trial, the sufficiency of evidence to support the conviction, the admissibility of certain evidence, and the proportionality of the sentence.

The court reviewed the evidence and the trial judge's decision to determine if there was a miscarriage of justice. The key legal issue was whether Wilson's use of force was justified under section 56. The court found that the judge did not err in assessing the evidence and that Wilson's claim of justification was not supported by the evidence. The court concluded that Wilson's trial was fair and that the judge's findings were reasonable. The appeal against the decision to deny a discharge without conviction was also dismissed, as the judge was entitled to consider the seriousness of the offence and its impact on Wilson's professional licences. The court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing Wilson's appeal.

Orders