WICKS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 505
Because the appellant was innocently misidentified, not complicit, and the Police accepted his innocence, the Court found a miscarriage of justice, granted an extension of time, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and entered a judgment of acquittal under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZHC 505
- Parties
- Appellant: James David Wicks; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 13 March 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (leave to Extend Time Granted; Appeal Allowed)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; judgment of acquittal entered; extension of time to file notice of appeal granted.
- Legal Topics
- Miscarriage of Justice, Identity Misidentification, Perverting the Course of Justice, Extension of Time for Appeal, Driving While Licence Suspended
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
James David Wicks
Appellant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (leave to Extend Time Granted; Appeal Allowed)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether time for filing a notice of appeal should be extended
- 2 Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred due to misidentification and conviction entered in another's name
- 3 Whether the conviction should be set aside and an acquittal entered
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellant was innocently misidentified, not complicit, and the Police accepted his innocence, the Court found a miscarriage of justice, granted an extension of time, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and entered a judgment of acquittal under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; judgment of acquittal entered; extension of time to file notice of appeal granted.
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted extending time under s231 Criminal Procedure Act 2011
- Appeal allowed under s232(2)(c); conviction set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
WICKS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 505 [13 March 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDDUNEDIN REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTEPOTI ROHECRI-2019-412-45[2020] NZHC 505JAMES DAVID WICKSvNEW ZEALAND POLICEOn the papers:Counsel: R Smith for AppellantC E R Power for RespondentJudgment: 13 March 2020JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN JBackground[1] James David Wicks (James) has a brother called Keith Wicks (Keith).[2] On 12 March 2019 in the District Court at Dunedin, Keith was convicted forthe offence of driving while his licence was suspended or revoked (Land TransportAct 1998 ss 32(1)(c) and 32(3)), was fined $400 and disqualified from driving for sixmonths. However, at the time he was apprehended, Keith had identified himself asJames. Therefore, it was James who was charged. Keith appeared at Court stillpretending to be James and was sentenced under James' name.[3] James was not in any way culpable for this piece of deception.[4] On 9 August 2019, Keith was convicted and sentenced on charges includingattempting to pervert the course of justice (CRN 19012001713) and giving false detailsas to driver identity (CRN 19012001712) relating to this deception.[5] The Police accept that James was innocent of the offence of driving while hislicence was suspended or revoked in respect of which a conviction was entered.The appeal[6] James has appealed the conviction entered against his name. However, thenotice of appeal was filed on 19 December 2019 well outside the 20 working daysprovided for by s 231 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act).[7] This Court has the power to extend the time allowed for the filing of a noticeof application for leave to appeal. James has applied to do that, and the Police haveno objection. Accordingly, I grant James leave to appeal.1[8] Section 232(2)(c) of the Act provides that the Court must allow an appeal ifsatisfied in any case that a miscarriage of justice has occurred for any reason.[9] I am satisfied that a miscarriage of justice has occurred in this case. James wasnot complicit in the actions of Keith in using James' name. He was ignorant that thishad occurred and as soon as he became aware he took appropriate steps to appeal theconviction.[10] Where the Court is satisfied that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, it mayallow the appeal and set aside the conviction.2 I do so in this case and direct that ajudgment of acquittal be entered in James' favour pursuant to s 233(3)(a) of the Act.1 Section 231(3) Criminal Procedure Act 2011.2 Section 233 Criminal Procedure Act 2011.[11] As this judgment now fully and finally disposes of the appeal, the hearing dateof 10:00 am on 2 June 2020 is vacated.Churchman JSolicitors:RPB Law, Dunedin for Respondentcc: R Smith, Barrister, Montrose Chambers, Invercargill