Tony Beach’s client was charged with theft from a person, assault and unlawfully interfering with a motor vehicle. At the judge-alone trial, the judge dismissed the charge of unlawfully interfering with a motor vehicle as the police had failed to summons their civilian witness in sufficient time for the hearing; the police conceded that they had insufficient evidence to proceed with the theft charge, which was then dismissed; Tony Beach then applied for the assault charge to be dismissed under s147 of the Criminal Procedure Act as there was insufficient evidence of identity of the defendant on which a judge could find beyond reasonable doubt that he had committed the assault. The judge agreed and dismissed that charge as well.
Judge dismisses 2 counts of using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage
Tony Beach’s client, a mother of a disabled son, was charged by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) with using a document (benefit claim forms) on two occasions to obtain a pecuniary advantage (a benefit for looking after her disabled son). The offence attracts up to 7 years imprisonment. The MSD alleged that, because another party was being paid a sum to care for the disabled man for a number of hours per week, the mother could not have been providing “full time care and attention” of her son as required by the conditions of the benefit. However, “full time care and attention” doesn’t require 24 hour care – only that the disabled son had 24 hour access to his mother’s care, which the defence asserted he did. Tony Beach obtained documentation from ACC through a non-party disclosure application which revealed the extent of the care and attention the mother provided for her disabled son. After a two day judge alone trial, the judge found that the mother acted honestly and “has done nothing more than endeavour to provide the best care for her son. It is clear that that care has been and continues to be an enormous burden”. The judge dismissed each of the charges.
Tony Beach interviewed by Newstalk ZB
UPDATED 5.40pm: MP Chester Borrows has been charged over injuring two women with a car during a Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) protest.
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/politics/mp-chester-borrows-charged-over-tpp-protest-driving/
LISTEN ABOVE: Expert in traffic law, barrister Tony Beach talks to Larry Williams
The Whanganui National MP and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives told NZME he would defend the charge of careless driving causing injury for the March incident in Whanganui.
MORE: Police investigate whether MP ran over protester’s foot
He would not comment further.
A charge sheet at the Whanganui District Court today showed a 59-year-old man named Kerry James Borrows – his birth name – was charged with operating a vehicle on Liverpool St carelessly, “and thereby caused injury to Tracey Treadwell and Denise Lockett.”
Detective Senior Sergeant Neil Forlong would not confirm names, but said a 59-year-old man has been charged in relation to an incident on Liverpool St on March 22.
Crown prosecutors will have a lot to prove to show Mr Borrows is guilty of careless driving.
Auckland barrister Tony Beach told Larry Williams there are a number of elements to the careless driving charge which prosecutors will have to prove.
“Was he driving. Was he driving carelessly. Possibly he may not have even been on a road.”
The role of Parliament’s Deputy Speaker is now under question after it emerged he’s been charged by police, and it’s not the first time a Deputy Speaker has been in hot water.
In 2000 then Deputy Speaker Ian Revell stepped down from the post, over a $40 parking ticket and allegations he’d threatened police over it.
Whether Mr Borrows will also step down remains unknown.
He’s offering no comment on the matter and the Speaker’s Office is yet to clarify its position.
It is not yet known when Borrows will appear in court.
Blackmail charge amended
A defendant was referred to Tony Beach by a solicitor. The client was charged with blackmail, a serious charge attracting up to 14 years imprisonment under the Crimes Act 1961. After considering the evidence and taking full instructions from his client, Tony Beach successfully negotiated an agreement with the Crown to amend the charge to an offence under the Telecommunications Act 2001, attracting up to 3 months imprisonment. After hearing submissions from Tony Beach, the judge ordered the client to come up for sentence if called upon in 12 months – a ‘good behaviour bond’ – together with a modest emotional harm payment to the victim.
Appeal to the High Court successful
Tony Beach’s client pleaded guilty to a raft of charges and was sentenced to two years imprisonment. However, the client instructed that the decision be appealed to the High Court. The appeal was based on the grounds that the judge should have imposed home detention. After considering written submissions and hearing extensive argument from Tony Beach the High Court agreed that a sentence of home detention was appropriate. The sentence of imprisonment was vacated and a sentence of ten months home detention was imposed.
Watchdog to ensure no torture taking place in prisons, lawyer says
Watchdog to ensure no torture taking place in prisons, lawyer says
Author
Section
Publish Date
Saturday, 8 October 2016, 12:09PM
An old entrance to the Mt Eden prison in Auckland (Getty Images)
The Department of Corrections will be under greater scrutiny to ensure that no prisoners are being tortured, a prominent Auckland criminal lawyer says.
The Office of the Ombudsman will be stepping up its monitoring of Mount Eden prison after an investigation found private company Serco was negligent in its running of the facility.
A report released on Thursday detailed lax supervision, regular organised fights and some prisoners being denied proper medical checks and access to lawyers.
The Ombudsman will be carrying out regular inspections and unannounced visits to prisons.
Auckland lawyer Tony Beach said the Ombudsman will be checking to see if the Corrections Department is complying with the Crimes of Torture Act, “to ensure that there is no torture or ill treatment of those who are in detention.”
The Act is meant to fulfil New Zealand’s responsibilities under the United Nations’ Convention Against Torture.
Beach said New Zealand doesn’t want to be seen as a place that allows ill-treatment of people in the custody of the state.
“It’s something that would reflect badly on New Zealand internationally,” he said.
Among the findings, the report from the Chief Inspector of Corrections says in June and July last year organised fights were regular affairs, likely to be happening at least once a week.
“Prisoners reported that if they refused to participate they would be threatened, “pack attacked” or assaulted by (gang) senior members,” it said.
Guards were at times found to be playing pool or table tennis instead of supervising inmates and some prison areas went more than two hours without being watched due to staffing shortages.
Corrections has made 21 recommendations, calling for a raft of changes to staffing and procedures at the prison.
Charges of using a forged document and obtaining by deception dismissed
A client was charged under the Crimes Act 1961 with using a forged document and obtaining by deception. The client had assisted a family member in his dealings with Work and Income. There was evidence that the family member was, to some extent, mentally impaired. Other members of the family brought accusations against Tony Beach’s client to the attention of the Police and the charges followed. After a trial before a Judge alone, the Court found, after carefully considering all the evidence, that both charges were not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and were dismissed.
Possession of drugs, utensils, firearms and ammunition charges dismissed
Tony Beach’s client was facing charges of possession of Class A drugs and possession of utensils (a pipe) under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, as well as charges of possession of firearms and ammunition under the Arms Act 1983. Tony Beach argued that the possession charges should be dismissed on the grounds that the search of the client’s property by the Police was unlawful. The Judge agreed: the Police can enter and search a place without a warrant under section 20 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 – but only in certain circumstances. The Police could have obtained a warrant in these circumstances. As well, the Police had failed to provide a written report of the circumstances of the warrantless search as they were required to do. The Judge then considered whether the evidence of the drugs, pipe, firearms and ammunition should be admitted, despite the unlawful search (section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006). The Judge found that, due to the small quantity of drugs involved and the ancient firearms, the evidence should be excluded – consequently, all charges arising from the unlawful search were dismissed.