Mold v Police HC Hamilton CRI 2011-419-70 [2011] NZHC 1608 (24 August 2011)

Last Updated: 22 November 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2011-419-70

BETWEEN GEOFFREY WILLIAM MOLD Appellant

AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 24 August 2011

Counsel: No appearance by, or on behalf of Appellant

M N Sturm for Respondent

Judgment: 24 August 2011

_{(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J}

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

Copy to:

_{Appellant in person}

MOLD V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC HAM CRI 2011-419-70 24 August 2011

[1] Mr Mold was charged with three offences, in the District Court at Morrinsville. The first was one of refusing to accompany an enforcement officer without delay, the second was of refusing to permit a blood specimen to be taken under s 60(1)(a) of the Land Transport Act 1998 and there was one of resisting a constable acting in the execution of his duty.

[2] Following a defended hearing before Judge Tompkins on 12 August 2010, Mr

Mold was found guilty on all charges. He was convicted and sentenced.

[3] An appeal was brought against both conviction and sentence. It appears that an order deferring the community work part of the sentence was made pending the appeal but an order for disqualification from driving was not. In any event, no steps have subsequently been taken by Mr Mold to prosecute his appeal.

[4] The one concern I have relates to the fact that, while the appeal was filed on

12 August 2010, it appears to have lain in the District Court at Morrinsville and not reached this Court. A copy does not appear to have been filed in this Court, but I am not sufficiently confident to assert that as a proved fact. Further, steps have been taken to locate Mr Mold and to advise him of a hearing date for the appeal. However he does not appear to be readily locatable at present.

[5] Documentation sent to Mr Mold’s last known address has been returned. Other inquiries made by the police have failed to ascertain his present whereabouts.

[6] Although Mr Mold does not have notice of today’s hearing, I consider that he ought to have taken some steps to prosecute his appeal in the meantime and that it is appropriate for the appeal to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

[7] However, given the unusual circumstances, I reserve leave to Mr Mold to apply to have the appeal reinstated within seven days of service upon him of a notice advising that the appeal has been dismissed. That will need to be done if the police wished to enforce the community work order.

P R Heath J