JAIN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 3232
Because the newly admitted facts showed the bonnet’s value at the time of receiving was below the $1,000 threshold, the appellant could not in law have been convicted of receiving stolen property over $1,000; accordingly the conviction was quashed and substituted under s 234 for the appropriately valued offence.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZHC 3232
- Parties
- Appellant: Prateek Jain; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 7 December 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; 2012 conviction quashed and substituted pursuant to s 234 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 with a conviction for receiving stolen property valued between $500 and $1,000.
- Legal Topics
- Receiving Stolen Property, Conviction Quashing, Substitution of Conviction Under S 234, Miscarriage of Justice
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Prateek Jain
Appellant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was a factual foundation that the stolen bonnet was worth over $1,000 at the time of receiving
- 2 Whether the 2012 conviction could stand in law given the newly admitted facts
- 3 Whether the proper remedy is quashing the conviction and substituting a lesser conviction under s 234 Criminal Procedure Act 2011
Ratio Decidendi
Because the newly admitted facts showed the bonnet’s value at the time of receiving was below the $1,000 threshold, the appellant could not in law have been convicted of receiving stolen property over $1,000; accordingly the conviction was quashed and substituted under s 234 for the appropriately valued offence.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; 2012 conviction quashed and substituted pursuant to s 234 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 with a conviction for receiving stolen property valued between $500 and $1,000.
Orders
- The 2012 conviction for receiving stolen property valued over $1,000 is quashed.
- Pursuant to section 234 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 the conviction is substituted for receiving stolen property valued between $500 and $1,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JAIN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 3232 [7 December 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECRI 2020-404-000260[2020] NZHC 3232BETWEEN PRATEEK JAINAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: 7 December 2020Appearances: Paul Wicks QC for AppellantB Hamilton for RespondentJudgment: 7 December 2020JUDGMENT OF DUFFY JSolicitors/Counsel:Paul Wicks QC, AucklandCrown Solicitor, Auckland[1] Mr Prateek Jain appeals his conviction for receiving stolen property valued atover $1,000. 1[2] On 1 November 2011, a burglary took place at a residential address in Massey,and a R34 carbon-fibre car bonnet was stolen. The Police summary of facts recordsthe bonnet was valued at approximately $1,200.[3] On 20 August 2012, Mr Jain, then aged 17, pleaded guilty to, and wasconvicted of, receiving stolen property valued at over $1,000 (the 2012 conviction).[4] It has now come to light, and the appellant and the respondent agree there isno factual foundation to support the charge The bonnet was purchased in 2007 for$1,200. As at the date of the receiving by the appellant in November 2011 the bonnetmust have depreciated in value owing to the passage of time, as it then had somedamage to it. The value of the bonnet must have been less than $1,000 at the time theappellant received in it November 2011.[5] The appellant and the respondent accordingly now agree that the appellantshould not have pleaded guilty to the offence as the factual foundation to support itwas absent. Both accept justice has thereby miscarried. Both accept the appropriatedisposition of this appeal is the quashing of the 2012 conviction and the substitutionunder s 234 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 for a conviction for receiving stolenproperty of a value between $500 and $1,000.[6] It is plain to me the appeal must be allowed. The circumstances fall into thesecond class of exceptional circumstances reiterated by Kós P in Whichman v R2namely that on the newly admitted facts the appellant could not, in law, have beenconvicted of the offence charged.1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and 247(a); maximum penalty imprisonment not exceeding 7 years.2 Whichman v R [2018] NZCA 519.[7] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. I note that the appellant was sentenced to50 hours' community work and served that sentence. Accordingly no issue arises withrespect to sentence on the substituted offence.Duffy J