IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY
CRI-2012-441-11 [2012] NZHC 2053
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against conviction and sentence
BETWEEN MAHONRI WHALUM HODGES Appellant
ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
Hearing: 14 August 2012
Appearances: M J Phelps for Appellant
N M Graham for Respondent
Judgment: 14 August 2012
ORAL JUDGMENT OF PETERS J
Solicitors: Elvidge & Partners, Crown Solicitor, Napier: nicola.graham@elvidges.co.nz
Counsel: M J Phelps, Hastings: matt@snelllaw.co.nz
HODGES V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC NAP CRI-2012-441-11 [14 August 2012]
[1] This is an appeal against conviction and sentence.[1]
[1] Police v Hodges DC Hastings CRI-2012-020-736, 3 April 2012.
[2] It is common ground between the Appellant and the Respondent that the Appellant’s appeal should be allowed as a result of the manner in which this case proceeded in the District Court.
[3] The Appellant was charged with assault. He was eligible for diversion and the Police were agreeable to diversion. With respect to the Judge, that was the outcome that should have followed but it did not.
[4] Through no fault of the Appellant, he ended up with a conviction and sentence. It is apparent from the transcript of the proceedings that day that the suggestion of the conviction and sentence emanated from the Judge. I am satisfied that the Judge erred in proceeding as he did that day.
[5] I have considered whether I ought to discharge the Appellant without conviction but believe there would be benefits to be obtained if the matter were remitted back to the District Court so that it could proceed as originally intended.
[6] Accordingly, I vacate the guilty plea that the Appellant entered to the charge of assault. The sentence is quashed as a result and I remit the matter back to the District Court.
..................................................................
M Peters J
- AGLC
- Hodges v Police [2012] NZHC 2053
- Case
- [2012] NZHC 2053
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the judge's deviation from the intended diversion process constituted an error warranting the appeal's allowance. The court examined the transcript of the District Court proceedings and concluded that the suggestion for conviction and sentence came from the judge, who had made an error in judgment. The court considered whether to discharge Hodges without conviction but opted to remit the case back to the District Court to allow it to proceed as originally intended, with diversion.
In its judgment, the High Court allowed Hodges' appeal and vacated his guilty plea for the assault charge. The sentence was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the intended diversion process. The court believed this outcome would achieve the best result, given the circumstances.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.