Police v Scott [2020] NZDC 6514 (20 April 2020)

Last Updated: 10 June 2020

EDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO THIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TĀHUNA

CRI-2020-059-000250

[2020] NZDC 6514

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Prosecutor v

DANIEL SHAWN SCOTT Defendant

Hearing:	20 April 2020
Appearances:	Sergeant I Collin for the Prosecutor H Young for the Defendant
Judgment:	20 April 2020

NOTES OF JUDGE B A FARNAN ON SENTENCING

[1] I have before me, Daniel Shawn Scott, who is represented by Mr Young. I am hearing this Queenstown matter in the Invercargill District Court. The defendant has joined this hearing today by way of AVL and Sergeant Collin has joined by phone.

[2] [Details unrelated to this matter deleted]

[3] [Details unrelated to this matter deleted]

[4] Additionally, the defendant is facing two further charges which were laid in this Court on 13 April 2020, which the defendant now accepts. They allege that he intentionally damaged a stainless steel toilet at the Queenstown Police Station; and

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v SCOTT [2020] NZDC 6514 [20 April 2020]

also that he breached the Health Act 1956 after having received several educational warnings from the police to comply with the Covid-19 restrictions.

[5] [Details unrelated to this matter deleted].

[6] The purpose of today’s hearing initially was to deal with what had originally been an opposed bail application. I had asked the police to provide statements from their various witnesses, confirming the police allegations that Mr Scott had breached the Covid-19 restrictions and had been given various educational warnings.

[7] Today Mr Young, on behalf of the defendant, has accepted that the defendant did receive the warnings, and the defendant no longer wishes to challenge the police position regarding his breaches of those restrictions.

[8] Further, the defendant has now admitted the charge under the Health Act, and the wilful damage charge.

[9] In respect of the obstructing a medical officer under the Health Act, the defendant was spoken to by the police on 29 March 2020 when he was stopped by the police on Lake Esplanade, Queenstown and he was given an educational warning with regards to the lockdown. However, it is noted in the summary of facts that the defendant appeared somewhat uninterested.

[10] On 31 March 2020 the defendant and an associate were stopped in a vehicle on Frankton Road in Queenstown. At that time the defendant told the police that he was driving to the laundrette and then returning home. He confirmed that he was aware of the Covid-19 restrictions and again he was given an educational warning.

[11] Further, on 4 April 2020, the defendant and an associate were spoken to by the police in the Gore area. He stated that they were heading to the hospital in Invercargill when they ran out of petrol. Again, there was an educational warning.

[12] The next day, at about 1.30 pm, the police again warned the defendant for breaching the Covid restrictions, as he had recently travelled to Dunedin and

Invercargill with an associate (who I understand was his then partner) during the level four restrictions.

[13] Finally, on 11 April 2020, the defendant was found on the Crown Range Road in breach of the alert level four restrictions, and having previously been warned and educated around current legislative restrictions. The defendant at that time did not proffer an explanation as to why he was on the Crown Range. He admitted being on bail, and it was considered that his travel was not essential. What, in fact, transpired is that the defendant later, when interviewed by the police, formally told the police that he had travelled to Oamaru that morning to help his mother shift firewood, and that he was on his way back to Queenstown when his vehicle overheated on the Crown Range. The defendant had been found by the police on the Crown Range at 10.40 pm.

[14] In terms of the wilful damage charge, the defendant accepted that he damaged the toilet at the police station because he was angry, and he said he does not believe in the laws, by which I presume he meant the Covid-19 restrictions.

[15] At the time of the breach of the Health Act restrictions, the defendant had been on bail [details unrelated to this matter deleted]. He had, at that time, been released on bail and one of his bail conditions was to comply with the New Zealand Government Covid-19 restrictions. In fact, following the police educational warnings, his bail reinforced the Government restrictions, yet the defendant continued to breach those restrictions.

[16] The defendant initially today had sought bail. He has an address available in Arrowtown, but as a result of his guilty pleas to the new charges, s 13 Bail Act 2000 applies.

[17] Following a discussion with the defendant and counsel, I indicated to the defendant that if he pleaded guilty to the Health Act charge and the wilful damage charge, I would sentence him to a sentence of imprisonment of no more than six weeks’ imprisonment.

[18] The defendant accepted that sentence indication and confirmed his guilty pleas, and also confirmed that he wished to waive his right to a pre-sentence report and be sentenced today.

[19] [Details unrelated to this matter deleted].

[20] Therefore, Mr Scott, I am going to deal with you in the following way.

[21] In respect of the breach of the Health Act 1956, you are sentenced to one month’s imprisonment. I am not going to impose any release conditions on you. I am not going to convert that sentence to home detention. In any event, you do not have an approved address at this time, and conversion would not, in my view, meet the purposes and principles of sentencing.

[22] In respect of the wilful damage charge, you are sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment, which is cumulative on the Health Act charge, CRN 323. That likewise is not converted to home detention, and there are no release conditions.

[23] I am going to direct that you make a reparation payment to the New Zealand Police in the sum of $300.

[24] [details unrelated to this matter deleted].

[25] [Details unrelated to this matter deleted].

Judge BA Farnan

District Court Judge

Date of authentication: 22/04/2020

In an electronic form, authenticated pursuant to Rule 2.2(2)(b) Criminal Procedure Rules 2012.