Page v Police HC Dunedin CRI-2011-412-000008 [2011] NZHC 984 (8 April 2011)

Last Updated: 27 September 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

_{CRI-2011-412-000008}

PAUL JAMES PAGE

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

_Respondent

Hearing: 7 April 2011

Counsel: Appellant in person

R P Bates for Respondent

Judgment: 8 April 2011

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

_{(on appeal against conviction and sentence)}

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 8 April 2011 at 3pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, PO Box 803, Dunedin. Email: [e-mail]

Copy to:

P J Page, 85 Columba Avenue, Calton Hill, Dunedin 9012.

PAGE V NZ POLICE HC DUN CRI-2011-412-000008 8 April 2011

[1] Mr Page was convicted following a defended hearing in the District Court on charges of assault, behaving in an offensive manner and using offensive language.[1]

Judge Coyle sentenced Mr Page to 140 hours of community work on the charge of assault. On each of the other two charges the Judge fined Mr Page $250 and ordered him to pay Court costs of $132.89.[2]

[2] Mr Page now appeals to this Court against conviction and sentence.

Facts

[3] The charges arose out of an incident that occurred in South Dunedin on

18 September 2010. During that morning Ms Rochelle Bradshaw was walking to the supermarket with her two children, one of whom was her five year old daughter Mia. She was pushing her other child in a pram. As she approached the Sports Dairy on the corner of Hillside Road and Burns Street, she saw two persons whom she recognised standing outside the dairy. One of those persons was Mr Page.

[4] Ms Bradshaw had had some dealings with Mr Page in the past, and this caused her to give the two men a wide berth. Whilst she was standing at the traffic lights waiting to cross to the other side of Burns Street, her daughter Mia was standing to her right and in front of her. Out of the corner of her eye, Ms Bradshaw saw Mr Page make a move and she then saw her daughter stumble forward. Immediately after that, she saw Mr Page’s hands moving away from Mia. The manner in which her daughter had moved forward into Burns Street suggested to Ms Bradshaw that her daughter had been pushed or propelled forward by Mr Page. She then looked at Mr Page, and saw that he was holding his hands out with the palms of his hands towards Ms Bradshaw.

[5] Not surprisingly, Ms Bradshaw was concerned and upset by what had happened. She responded by calling Mr Page an “ignorant prick”. His response was to call her a “fucking bitch”. At that stage the “Cross now” signal on the pedestrian

_{crossing was activated, and Ms Bradshaw and her daughter walked across Burns}

Street on the pedestrian crossing. Mr Page followed her, continuing to call her a “fucking bitch” on numerous occasions. When Ms Bradshaw reached the other side of Burns Street, Mr Page continued to follow her and to abuse her by calling her a “fucking bitch”. He then filled his mouth with saliva and began spitting in her direction. The spit landed on the pavement as close as three centimetres from Mia’s feet.

[6] The incident eventually ended when Mr Page crossed Hillside Road, where Ms Bradshaw heard him talking loudly to another person. That person, a Mr Harborn, then approached Ms Bradshaw in his vehicle to check that she was all right. It was clear to Mr Harborn that Ms Bradshaw was quite distressed. Eventually, however, she and her children continued on to the supermarket, where they did their grocery shopping.

[7] Mr Harborn intervened because he had walked out of the dairy just in time to see a movement suggesting to him that Mr Page had pushed Mia forward. He became concerned when he saw Mr Page verbally abusing Ms Bradshaw as they crossed the street. It was for that reason that he checked to see that Ms Bradshaw was all right.

[8] This narrative of events is the version by Ms Bradshaw and Mr Harborn. Mr Page had given evidence to the effect that he did not touch Mia, that he never verbally abused Ms Bradshaw and that he did not spit in the direction of Ms Bradshaw and her children. His version of events was to the effect that it was Ms Bradshaw who swore at and abused him. The Judge rejected this evidence, and accepted the evidence of Ms Bradshaw and Mr Harborn. He found that it was sufficient to establish the essential ingredients of all three charges that Mr Page faced.

Grounds of appeal

[9] Mr Page did not file written submissions in support of his appeal. Instead he delivered a lengthy oral address in which he traversed a wide range of topics, most

of which had only the most peripheral relevance to the proceeding that gave rise to the present appeal.

[10] Mr Page’s principal concern appeared to be the fact that he has been persecuted by a variety of agencies and authorities over recent years. He complains that his requests for assistance from the governments of New Zealand and the United Kingdom have not borne fruit. Obviously those issues are well beyond the scope of the present appeal.

[11] Mr Page also submitted that he was convicted on the basis of perjured evidence given by the complainant and the prosecution’s supporting witness. That may be his view, but Judge Coyle heard the witnesses and was entitled to reach findings of credibility in relation to them. It would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with those findings on the basis of Mr Page’s unsubstantiated assertion that they were lying.

[12] Mr Page also expressed concern that the prosecution had not called, and he was not given the opportunity to call, other witnesses who were present at the scene of the incident and who may have been able to corroborate his version of events. The prosecution was not, however, required to call those persons and it remained open to Mr Page to call them as witnesses in his defence. This issue does not assist him.

[13] Mr Page also made broad allegations that he had been denied a fair trial, and that he had been prejudiced by the manner in which the prosecution was conducted. Reading the transcript as a whole, however, it is clear that these submissions have no factual foundation. The Judge was faced with a very difficult task in controlling the hearing because of the manner in which Mr Page conducted his defence. The Judge was obliged to keep the hearing within acceptable parameters in terms of relevance, and this required him to interrupt Mr Page on occasions whilst he was cross- examining witnesses and making submissions. That fact does not, however, render the hearing unfair.

[14] I see no basis, either, upon which this Court would be justified in interfering with the Judge’s conclusion that each of the charges was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The sentences that the Judge imposed were also clearly within the available range.

Result

[15] The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.

...................................

Lang J

---

[1] _{NZ Police v Page DC Dunedin CRI-2010-012-4785, 28 February 2011 [oral judgment].}
[2] NZ Police v Page DC Dunedin CRI-2010-012-4785, 28 February 2011 [sentencing notes].