Talo v Police [2018] NZHC 1063 (16 May 2018)

Last Updated: 7 June 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-404-000090 [2018] NZHC 1063

IN THE MATTER OF	an appeal against conviction and sentence
BETWEEN	TAULIMA TALO Appellant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	14 May 2018
Appearances:	T Talo (Self-represented Appellant) in Person K V Mills for the Respondent
Judgment:	16 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Edwards on 16 May 2018 at 10.30 am, pursuant to

r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Meredith Connell (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Auckland

Copy To: T Talo, Auckland

TALO v POLICE [2018] NZHC 1063 [16 May 2018]

[1] Mr Talo pleaded guilty to one charge of common assault. He was sentenced to 75 hours’ community work and 15 months’ intensive supervision. The sentence of intensive supervision is judicially monitored and is subject to the following conditions:

(a) That he consents to take prescription medication for schizophrenia as prescribed to him.

(b) To attend and complete an appropriate departmental programme, either a short rehabilitation programme or a short motivational programme, and to complete that to the satisfaction of a probation officer.

(c) He is to undertake and complete any appropriate assessment, treatment or counselling as directed by, and to the satisfaction of, a probation officer.

(d) He is not to communicate in any way with the victim or go into Cash Converters Glen Inness without the prior written consent of a probation officer.

[2] Mr Talo appeals against conviction and sentence.

What happened?

[3] Mr Talo was a regular customer of Cash Converters. He had pawned a television set. He went to Cash Converters on 22 December 2016 to pick up his television. He noticed that it had a six inch long scratch along the base of it.

[4] He rang Cash Converters and complained about the scratch. He was told to bring the television back to the store and they would have a look at it. That is what he did. He talked to the man at the store about the scratch. He did not like what he had to say and he punched him in the shoulder. That caused bruising. He was told to leave, but he kept trying to punch the man a few more times, but did not connect. He then left the store.

Mr Talo

[5] Mr Talo is 58 years of age. He has a daughter who lives in Australia. He is a man of Christian faith.

[6] Mr Talo has schizophrenia. He receives injections at the Mason Clinic every two weeks for his schizophrenia. He also has type two diabetes, hypertension and sleep apnoea. He is a sickness beneficiary and unemployed. At the moment, he is living at a boarding house in Glen Innes.

[7] Mr Talo has 77 convictions. These include convictions for violent offending, namely: assaulting police (x 5), resisting police (x 4), assault (x 11), male assaults female (x 3), threatening to kill, injuring with intent to injure (x 2), fighting in a public place, intimidation, behaving threateningly, wilful damage and assaulting someone with a stabbing or cutting instrument.

[8] The District Court Judge had a report from a Court appointed psychiatrist before her. That report stated that Mr Talo needed to undergo more therapy to understand that violence was unacceptable.

Appeal against conviction

[9] Mr Talo appeals his conviction despite pleading guilty in the District Court. Lang J directed that the appeal was to proceed against sentence alone. Mr Talo told me that he did not know about that direction. To be fair to Mr Talo, I heard what he had to say.

[10] Mr Talo says that he was assigned a lawyer in the District Court. She advised him to plead guilty, and that is what he did. He says that he did not want to plead guilty as he wanted the man from Cash Converters to attend Court so that he could tell him about the scratch on the TV. He admits punching the victim, but says that he did not do anything wrong.

[11] There has to be very special reasons to set aside a conviction where someone has pleaded guilty. I have listened carefully to what Mr Talo has to say. There was
nothing wrong with the advice received from the lawyer. Mr Talo admitted hitting the victim. That is a common assault. There are no reasons to allow the appeal. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Appeal against sentence

[12] Mr Talo says he did nothing wrong, and he should not have been sentenced by the District Court Judge. He feels that the police have been out to get him and he is not guilty of any of his 77 prior convictions.

[13] Again, I have listened to everything Mr Talo has to say. It is clear that the District Court Judge also listened to what Mr Talo had to say. She referred to Mr Talo’s 77 prior convictions when sentencing Mr Talo. But she also made note of Mr Talo’s good features. These included contributions he had made to charity, previous awards, and instances of kindness to strangers.

[14] The Judge came up with a sentence which assisted Mr Talo, and the community. It struck a balance between rehabilitation and punishment. It was carefully tailored to meet Mr Talo’s needs. Some might think Mr Talo was lucky to avoid prison. But I agree with the Judge’s sentence. There was no mistake in her approach.

[15] The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Result

[16] The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

[17] That means that the conviction for common assault remains. The sentence of
75 hours’ community work and intensive supervision subject to the conditions imposed by the District Court Judge also remains.





Edwards J