McGlone v Police [2012] NZHC 1400 (13 June 2012)

Last Updated: 29 June 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI-2012-476-000005 [2012] NZHC 1400

JAMES DANIEL MCGLONE

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 13 June 2012

Appearances: Appellant appears in person

N Robson for Respondent

Judgment: 13 June 2012

_{ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHISHOLM J}

[1] In his absence Mr McGlone was convicted by Justices of the Peace in the District Court in Timaru for breaching a liquor ban. He was fined $150 and ordered to pay costs. This is an appeal against conviction and sentence, although Mr McGlone has indicated that the conviction is his primary concern.

[2] Mr McGlone is a fisherman operating out of the Bay of Islands. At the time of the alleged offending he was briefly in Timaru. He was unaware that there was a liquor ban. It seems that initially the police were prepared to issue a warning but that as matters developed (when the police asked Mr McGlone to empty his bottle of beer

_{but he declined to do so) he was arrested.}

MCGLONE V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC TIM CRI-2012-476-000005 [13 June 2012]

[3] The Justices heard formal proof and found the charge had been proved. They had before them an affidavit sworn by the police officer and which deposed that the summary of facts was correct. The decision of the Justices was very brief.

[4] Obviously Mr McGlone feels very strongly about this matter, and wishes to present his defence. Ideally he would like there to be a re-hearing in his home district. I have explained to him that that is not possible.

[5] While in the normal course of events it would probably be appropriate for the appeals to be dismissed, I have decided that given Mr McGlone’s early indication that he intended to defend the matter, and his strong desire to still do so, justice would be best served by referring the matter back for a re-hearing in Timaru. Accordingly, I will allow the appeal, quash the conviction and sentence and refer the matter back to the Timaru District Court for a re-hearing.

[6] You will need to understand Mr McGlone that when the Court fixes a time for the new hearing you are going to have to front. If you do not front the Justices will probably repeat the process and you will not get a further chance to present your defence.

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch, [e-mail]

Copy to Mr McGlone