Warren v Police [2012] NZHC 2656 (11 October 2012)

High Court of New Zealand

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

Warren v Police [2012] NZHC 2656 (11 October 2012)

Last Updated: 2 November 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-409-000060 [2012] NZHC 2656

VINCENT KERRY WARREN

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 11 October 2012

Appearances: Appellant appears in person

J T Mackenzie for respondent

Judgment: 11 October 2012

_{ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHISHOLM J}

[1] Having pleaded guilty to charges of harassment under the Harassment Act

1997 and using language with the intention of offending the recipient under the Telecommunications Act 2001, Mr Warren was sentenced to 250 hours community work on 20 October 2010. The complainant in relation to both charges was the same.

[2] At the time Mr Warren was represented by counsel. He then wished to appeal and took steps to appoint different counsel. Unfortunately his appeal was not lodged until 10 September 2012. The circumstances surrounding this delay have been explained by Mr Warren and the lawyer who was to bring the appeal. In the

_{meantime, Mr Warren has completed the sentence of 250 hours community work.}

WARREN V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC CHCH CRI-2012-409-000060 [11 October 2012]

[3] For the respondent, Mr Mackenzie has responsibly accepted that time for filing the appeal should be extended. It is extended accordingly.

[4] Mr Warren explained that while the appeal before the Court is an appeal against conviction he actually wishes to pursue an appeal against sentence. He has numerous complaints about the way in which the matter was handled. Amongst other things he is concerned about the time he spent on bail and the apparent weight given to the victim impact statement. He also takes issue with some of the facts.

[5] As I have explained to him, the Judge was entitled to sentence on the basis of the statement of facts before him, subject, of course, to any issues that were raised by counsel. As far as I can gather no dispute as to facts was raised at the time of sentencing.

[6] The only issue for this Court is whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. It needs to be kept in mind that the maximum penalty for an offence under the Harassment Act is two years imprisonment and the maximum penalty under the Telecommunications Act is three months. While the sentence might have seemed harsh to Mr Warren, it was clearly within the range available to the Judge, having regard to the facts upon which the Judge was sentencing. The appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly, P O Box 533, Christchurch 8140, [e-mail]

Copy to Appellant