Hwang v Police

[2017] NZHC 1171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-404-226 [2017] NZHC 1171

BETWEEN

JIMIN HWANG

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	31 October 2017
Appearances:	No appearance by or on behalf of Appellant A D Luck for Respondent
Judgment:	31 October 2017

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

HWANG v POLICE [2017] NZHC 1171 [31 October 2017]

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent

Introduction

[1]      Mr Hwang appeals his conviction for theft handed down by Judge SJ Maude in the District Court at North Shore on 8 May 2017.1

[2]      Mr Hwang has been representing himself on this appeal but he did not appear when the case was called a short time ago. I had his name called outside the courtroom but he is not here. Accordingly, I will decide the appeal by reference to the evidence and to the written submissions.

Background

[3]      The Police alleged that Mr Hwang, who had access to the victim’s house, entered it at night and stole a Compaq laptop.  The evidence for the prosecution was primarily that of Ms Chheang, a resident at the address who saw Mr Hwang arrive from her bedroom window. Ms Chheang knew Mr Hwang as a fellow occupant of the residence and was sure of her recognition.  Ms Chheang said the door to her bedroom was ajar and she saw Mr Hwang go into the living area where the computer was located and saw him put it into a bag.  At that point Mr Hwang left the address.

Ms Chheang did not say anything because she knew Mr Hwang had been given access to the computer and she had no reason to believe that he did not have permission to take it outside the house.

[4]      The owner of the computer, Mr Kang, gave evidence also.  He confirmed that

Mr Hwang did not have authority to take the computer.

[5]      There was no evidence of a break-in.

[6]      Judge Maude also had to consider the evidence of Mr Hwang.   Mr Hwang denied the offending and denied being in the complainant’s house when the computer

1      Police v Hwang [2017] NZDC 12372.

was taken.  He did not, however, have any evidence confirming his account that he spent that night at an internet café.

[7]      Judge Maude rejected Mr Hwang’s evidence, partly because he was vague as to when he moved into the complainant’s house but at the same time was detailed about what he was doing on the day in question. He rejected Mr Hwang’s explanation that the reason he had spent the night in the internet café was because there was no bed available for him at the complainant’s house.

[8]      On the face of the evidence, Judge Maude was entitled to enter the conviction.

Ms Chheang’s evidence was clear.

Case on appeal

[9]     As I say, Mr Hwang has been representing himself.   Instead of filing submissions, he was given permission to write a letter to the Court setting out his reasons as to why he should not have been convicted.

[10]     I have had regard to the letter, which is dated 20 January 2017.

[11]     There is nothing in the letter which calls into question Judge Maude’s decision. There is only an allegation that Mr Kang has framed him because Mr Hwang did not pay him money.  However, in context, the alleged actions of Mr Kang in persecuting Mr Hwang via the internet appear to have been after the date upon which the computer was stolen. That was the effect of Mr Hwang’s evidence before Judge Maude.

[12]     Mr Hwang does not allege any error by Judge Maude and nothing in his letter could raise, by inference, an allegation of error.

Decision

[13]     I am satisfied that there is no merit in Mr Hwang’s appeal and I dismiss it accordingly.

Brewer J