Woods v Police - [2018] NZHC 2189

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2018-409-000072

[2018] NZHC 2189

BETWEEN
QUENTIN DYLAN WOODS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 23 August 2018

Appearances:

M Starling and N R Wham for Appellant H F McKenzie for Respondent

Judgment:

24 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Mr Woods, was sentenced on 19 April 2018 in the District Court at Palmerston North to eight months’ imprisonment with 10 months’ release conditions after pleading guilty to one charge of possessing an offensive weapon, one charge of threatening behaviour and two charges of common assault. Various conditions were imposed. The appellant was due for release on 20 June 2018. An application to vary his release conditions was then brought by the Department of Corrections (the Department). On 19 June 2018 Judge Farish in the Christchurch District Court imposed various further conditions just prior to his release. Mr Woods appeals the imposition of two of these release variation conditions, arguing that the Judge did not have the jurisdiction to impose them.

WOODS v NZ POLICE [2018] NZHC 2189 [24 August 2018]

Background

[2] Mr Woods’ offending occurred in Palmerston North. He was transferred to Christchurch Men’s Prison a few days prior to his release. As I have noted, Mr Woods was due for release and released from his term of imprisonment on 20 June 2018. Mr Woods is now 19 years of age and has a long history with Oranga Tamariki and the Care and Protection System. Before me, Mr Woods’ counsel, Mr Starling, acknowledged that Mr Woods is a particularly challenged young man. Mr Woods is thought to have various psychiatric issues. It was intended that he be transferred to a secure psychiatric facility, however, there were no beds available for him.

[3] The Department’s application to vary Mr Woods’ release conditions and to impose other conditions would enable Mr Woods to reside for a short-term period at Torutanga in Christchurch, a supported accommodation. It is aimed at reintegrating people back into the community. Judge Farish heard this application in the Christchurch District Court on 19 June 2018.

[4] In considering the variation application, Judge Farish refused to apply the following condition sought by the Department because she considered s 93 of the Sentencing Act 2002 and s 15(3) of the Parole Act 2002 prevented her from doing so. The condition in question was worded as follows:

(a)To be placed in the care of an agency approved by the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, and between the hours of 8 am and 8 pm daily and while in the care of the agency, to be accompanied and monitored by an agency staff member at all times, unless he has the prior written approval of a probation officer.

[5] However, she did impose the remaining conditions sought by the Department. The conditions in issue require Mr Woods to:

(a)Undertake, engage in and complete a reintegration programme administered…

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 Woods 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: [2018] NZHC 2189
Decision Date: 24 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Woods v Police, the appellant, Mr. Woods, challenged the imposition of certain release conditions by the Christchurch District Court. The District Court had imposed these conditions prior to Mr. Woods' release from imprisonment. The court was tasked with determining whether the Judge had the jurisdiction to impose these conditions and whether they were lawful and necessary.

The primary legal issue revolved around the interpretation and application of the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Parole Act 2002, particularly concerning the types of conditions that could be imposed upon release from prison. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the curfew, electronic monitoring, and programme conditions imposed on Mr. Woods constituted a "residential restriction" which the Judge lacked the jurisdiction to impose.

The court found that the curfew and electronic monitoring conditions did not amount to residential restrictions as defined by the Parole Act. These conditions, while overlapping with residential restrictions, did not require Mr. Woods to comply with all five conditions set out in the Act. Therefore, they were lawful and should remain in place as they were necessary and proportional to reduce Mr. Woods' risk of reoffending. Regarding the programme condition, the court held that it was intended to facilitate Mr. Woods' rehabilitation and reintegration, serving the purposes outlined in the Sentencing Act. This condition was also found to be lawful, necessary, and proportional.

The High Court dismissed Mr. Woods' appeal, affirming that the Judge had the jurisdiction to impose the conditions in question and that these conditions were lawful and necessary.

Orders