Wilson v Police - [2013] NZHC 2647

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-419-26 [2013] NZHC 2647

BETWEEN
DONNA BEVERLEY WILSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:	8 October 2013
Appearances:	MB Meyrick for Appellant PV Cornege for Respondent
Judgment:	10 October 2013

JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 October 2013 at 4:00 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

WILSON v NZ POLICE [2013] NZHC 2647 [10 October 2013]

[1] Donna Beverley Wilson appeals against her conviction by Judge Arthur Tompkins in the District Court at Hamilton on a charge under s 257(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961 (“the Act”) in which it was alleged that she had used a forged document as if it was genuine. After hearing evidence on 11 and 12 February 2013, Judge Tompkins issued a reserved decision on 11 April 2013 and entered a conviction. On 17 June 2013, the appellant was sentenced to 100 hours’ community work and ordered to pay reparation.

The background facts

[2] The background facts leading to the charge were summarised by Judge Tompkins1 in the following terms:

[4] The defendant is an importer and breeder of Belgium Shepherd Groenendael dogs. In late April 2011 she had advertised another such dog, Luke, on Trade me as being ‘free to a good home’. Louise Thompson, who subsequently acquired the dog Carter from the defendant, responded to the advertisement, but it transpired that Luke was no longer available.

[5] However the defendant, with whom Ms Thompson corresponded by email, told her that another dog, Carter, might become available. Subsequently there was email and telephone contact between the two, and Ms Thompson was told that Carter needed to go to a new home.

[6] Because Ms Thompson was aware that sometimes breeding dogs are placed with restrictions on the new owner’s ability to breed from them, and or to have them neutered, she specifically enquired about that, and her evidence was that she was told that the dog did not “come with a contract”. Because Ms Thompson did not want Carter to breed with their existing dog her original intention was to acquire Carter and then have him neutered.

[7] After agreement was reached in June 2011, Ms Thompson paid for Carter’s transportation down to Linton where she then resided, and took possession of him.

[8] Things did not work out with Carter. Eventually Ms Thompson and her partner decided to re-home him with another person they knew, and although there was some initial ongoing contact, after a while they lost contact.

1 Police v Wilson DC Hamilton CRI-2012-019-2555, 11 April 2013.

[9] The next thing they knew was that Carter (by then known as Solo) was listed on Trade Me by the PAWS Animal Shelter in Fielding. It turned out that the person to whom Carter had initially gone had had some problems with Carter, so the dog was passed on to a farmer that person knew. Subsequently Carter had been impounded by the Manawatu…

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: [2013] NZHC 2647
Decision Date: 10 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Donna Beverley Wilson appeals her conviction and sentence for using a forged document as if it was genuine, under section 257(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. The background facts show that Wilson, an importer and breeder of Belgium Shepherd Groenendael dogs, advertised a dog named Luke for free adoption. Louise Thompson responded to the advertisement but learned Luke was no longer available. Wilson then told Thompson about another dog, Carter, who was available for adoption. After negotiations, Thompson acquired Carter but later re-homed him with another person. The dog was eventually listed for sale by PAWS Animal Shelter, an animal re-housing charity, which had taken possession of the dog. Wilson then lodged a claim with the Disputes Tribunal, naming PAWS and claiming $15,000 for the lost "value of this dog to my breeding programme." She submitted a "lease" document to the Disputes Tribunal, which is central to the case. The Judge found the "lease" document to be forged, as it contained numerous errors, bore no resemblance to Thompson's signature, and was never delivered to her. The Judge also concluded that the false lease was made with the intention of being used or relied on as genuine. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed as the Judge was entitled to find that the appellant knew the document was forged when she used it. The appeal against the sentence was also dismissed, as the order for community service and reparation was deemed appropriate. The Judge's reasoning was consistent, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed.

Orders