Lawson v Police [2012] NZHC 3571 (20 December 2012)

Last Updated: 11 January 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2012-443-44 [2012] NZHC 3571

BETWEEN SONJA MAREE LAWSON Appellant

AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: (on the papers)

Counsel: L C Rowe for Respondent

P M Keegan for Appellant

Judgment: 20 December 2012

_{JUDGMENT OF HEATH J}

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 December 2012 at 3.00pm pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, PO Box 441, Wanganui

Counsel:

_{P Keegan, PO Box 8152, New Plymouth}

LAWSON V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC NWP CRI 2012-443-44 [20 December 2012]

[1] Ms Lawson appeals against her convictions on charges under the Telecommunications Act 2001. She was convicted on three charges of using a telephone device for the purpose of making a malicious telephone call. Three calls were made to three separate complainants.

[2] Convictions were entered following a defended hearing before Judge Bouchier in the District Court at Hawera. However, in readying the appeal for hearing the Registrar discovered that neither the notes of evidence nor the Judge’s oral reasons for her decision had been properly recorded. In those circumstances, Mr Keegan, for Ms Lawson, contends that the appeal should be allowed.

[3] Ms Rowe, for the Police, having considered the position, accepts that the preferable course is to allow the appeal and to direct a rehearing of the three informations in the District Court.

[4] I am satisfied that is the appropriate course. Inquiries have been made with the District Court Judge to ascertain whether she retained any handwritten notes of the evidence or of her judgment. She did not. In those circumstances, it is right to allow the appeal and to direct a rehearing. Generally, see Lau v Ogle,[1] in which Cartwright J observed that in “most instances where notes of the evidence taken in the District Court are not available there will be no option but to remit the matter to

that Court for rehearing”.

[5] The appeal is allowed. Notwithstanding Mr Keegan’s submission to the

contrary, I direct that all three informations are remitted to the District Court for rehearing. A rehearing is the usual course in cases such as this.[2]

_{P R Heath J}

_{Delivered at 3.00pm on 20 December 2012}

---

[1] _{Lau v Ogle (1998) 12 PRNZ 547 (HC), at 550.}

[2] Ibid.