Lawson v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2012-443-44 [2012] NZHC 3571

BETWEEN SONJA MAREE LAWSON Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: (on the papers)

Counsel: L C Rowe for Respondent
P M Keegan for Appellant

Judgment: 20 December 2012

JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 December 2012 at 3.00pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, PO Box 441, Wanganui
Counsel:
P Keegan, PO Box 8152, New Plymouth

LAWSON V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC NWP CRI 2012-443-44 [20 December 2012]

[1] Ms Lawson appeals against her convictions on charges under the Telecommunications Act 2001. She was convicted on three charges of using a telephone device for the purpose of making a malicious telephone call. Three calls were made to three separate complainants.

[2] Convictions were entered following a defended hearing before Judge Bouchier in the District Court at Hawera. However, in readying the appeal for hearing the Registrar discovered that neither the notes of evidence nor the Judge’s oral reasons for her decision had been properly recorded. In those circumstances, Mr Keegan, for Ms Lawson, contends that the appeal should be allowed.

[3] Ms Rowe, for the Police, having considered the position, accepts that the preferable course is to allow the appeal and to direct a rehearing of the three informations in the District Court.

[4] I am satisfied that is the appropriate course. Inquiries have been made with the District Court Judge to ascertain whether she retained any handwritten notes of the evidence or of her judgment. She did not. In those circumstances, it is right to allow the appeal and to direct a rehearing. Generally, see Lau v Ogle,[1] in which Cartwright J observed that in “most instances where notes of the evidence taken in the District Court are not available there will be no option but to remit the matter to
that Court for rehearing”.

[1] Lau v Ogle (1998) 12 PRNZ 547 (HC), at 550.

[5] The appeal is allowed. Notwithstanding Mr Keegan’s submission to the
contrary, I direct that all three informations are remitted to the District Court for rehearing. A rehearing is the usual course in cases such as this.[2]
[2] Ibid.

P R Heath J

Delivered at 3.00pm on 20 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sonja Maree Lawson appealed against her convictions for using a telephone device to make malicious calls. The convictions were entered in the District Court at Hawera, following a defended hearing before Judge Bouchier. The appellant was convicted on three separate charges, each relating to a call made to a different complainant. The issue at hand was whether the appeal should be allowed due to the absence of proper records of the evidence and the judge's reasons for the decision. The respondent conceded that the preferable course was to allow the appeal and direct a rehearing in the District Court.

The court acknowledged that without proper notes of the evidence or the judge's judgment, it was not possible to review the merits of the conviction. This situation was analogous to the precedent set in Lau v Ogle, where Cartwright J held that in most cases where notes of the evidence are not available, the matter must be remitted to the District Court for rehearing. The court found it appropriate to follow this precedent and allow the appeal. Inquiries made with the District Court Judge confirmed that she did not retain any handwritten notes of the evidence or her judgment.

The appeal was allowed, and the court directed that all three informations be remitted to the District Court for rehearing. This was the usual course of action in cases where the necessary records were not available. The decision underscored the importance of proper record-keeping in legal proceedings to ensure the integrity and fairness of the judicial process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established