Hohua v Police [2013] NZHC 789 (17 April 2013)

Last Updated: 30 June 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2013-463-21 [2013] NZHC 789

MARK LOUIS HOHUA

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: (on the papers)

Counsel: R Plunket for the Apellant

J J Rhodes for the Respondent

Judgment: 17 April 2013

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J (Application for leave to appeal: modified judgment)

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 April 2013 at 11:00 a.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

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

Solicitors:

Ms R Plunket, Barrister, Whakatane

Mr J J Rhodes, Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Officer of the Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

HOHUA V POLICE HC TAU CRI-2013-463-21 [17 April 2013]

Application for leave to appeal

[1] The appellant’s application for leave to appeal is declined. I accept that the issue has application beyond the particular facts of the case. However, in my judgment there is little merit in the appeal. The point of more general application is the question of interpretation as opposed to the specific decision in this case. For the reasons recorded in the judgment at [9] and [10] the answer to the general issue appears clear.

Amended judgment

[2] Through inadvertence there are inaccurate section references in [8] of the judgment. Also, the sections are from different Acts, but the particular Act is not identified in [8] and this may be confusing. The reference in the fifth line to “s 9(3)(a)” should be a reference to s 15(3)(a) of the Parole Act. The next reference, should be s 93(2B) of the Sentencing Act. The final reference, to “paragraph (a)” should be to s 15(3)(a) of the Parole Act. Attached is a copy of the judgment with

_{those amendments.}

Woodhouse J