Here are just a few court documents, for the curious. The whole thing is so shady.
Links here
https://www.howcommunicate.com/extra-uploads-court-documents
Links to documents there^
Copy and paste of two documents here
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AT PORIRUA
I TE KŌTI Ā ROHE
KI PORIRUA
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
v
DAVID JEREMIAH SOLT
________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE WITHOUT CONVICTION
Next event: 4 April 2024
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Presented for filing by:C Gisler
Wellington Public Defender
Counsel Appearing:S Barclay
Level 9
Prime Property Tower
86-90 Lambton Quay
Wellington Central, Wellington 6011
Telephone:04 4953642
Fax:
Email:Sophie.Barclay@pds.govt.nz
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
Introduction
1 David Jeremiah Solt appears for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of breach of protection order under s 90(a), 9 and 112(1)(a) of the Family Violence Act 2018. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 3 year’simprisonment.
2 David Jeremiah Solt seeks a discharge without conviction pursuant to s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act).
3 The summary of facts is accepted.
4 The personal circumstances of David Jeremiah Soltare set out in his affidavit filed in support of this application.
5 In brief the consequences for David Jeremiah Soltof a conviction are that the imposition of a conviction for an offence of this type would greatly prejudice the chance of Mr Solt getting a job of the type he can do, given his physical disabilities.
The law
6 Section 11(1)(a) of the Act requires the Court to consider, where a person is found guilty or pleads guilty, whether the offender might be more appropriately dealt with by way of a discharge without conviction.
7 Section 106 of the Act provides:
Discharge without conviction
(1) If a person who is charged with an offence is found guilty or pleads guilty, the court may discharge the offender without conviction, unless by any enactment applicable to the offence the court is required to impose a minimum sentence.
(2)A discharge under this section is deemed to be an acquittal.
(3) A court discharging an offender under this section may—
(a)make an order for payment of costs or the restitution of any property; or
(b) make any order for the payment of any sum that the court thinks fair and reasonable to compensate any person who, through, or by means of, the offence, has suffered—
(i) loss of, or damage to, property; or
(ii) emotional harm; or
(iii)loss or damage consequential on any emotional or physical harm or loss of, or damage to, property:
(c) make any order that the court is required to make on conviction.
8 Section 107 of the Act sets out the threshold test that must be met before the discretion in s 106 can be exercised; namely that:
The court must not discharge an offender without conviction unless the Court is satisfied that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.
9 The Court of Appeal, in R v Hughes, affirmed that consideration of a discharge under s 106 involves the three-step process enunciated in its earlier decisions:
The Court must consider first, the gravity of the offending; secondly, the consequences of conviction; and finally, whether those consequences are out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending identified at step one.
10 The Court in Hughes expressly approved earlier dicta that frame the s 107 inquiry as one that:
[Must] refer to all the circumstances that are relevant in the particular case before the Court. It must have due regard to the nature of the offence and to the gravity with which it is viewed by Parliament; to the seriousness of the particular offending; to the circumstances of the particular offender in terms of the effect on his career, his pocket, his reputation and any civil disabilities consequential on conviction; and to any other relevant circumstances.
11 The Court of Appeal, in Z(CA447/2012) v R,responded to a concern that it had not, in post-Hughes decisions, adopted a consistent approach regarding when personal aggravating and mitigating factors fail to be considered.While the Court did not consider it to be of great significance whether the personal circumstances of the offender are taken into account at the first or third step of the enquiry, provided they are considered, it clarified that:
[When] considering the gravity of the offence, the court should consider all the aggravating and mitigating factors relating to the offending and the offender; the court should then identify the direct and indirect consequences of conviction for the offender and consider whether those consequences are out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence; if the court determines they are out of all proportion, it must still consider whether it should exercise its residual discretion to grant a discharge (although, as this Court said in Blythe, it will be a rare case where a court will refuse to grant a discharge in such circumstances).
12 In Hughes, the Court of Appeal affirmed that there is no onus of proof on the defendant to establish that the test of disproportionality has been met. The Court in Blythe observed that a favourable exercise of discretion is likely to follow a finding that the s 107 test has been met. The Court said:
[It] will be a rare case where an offender has passed through the
s 107 'gateway' then not discharged under [s 106].
Gravity of the offending
13 When considering whether the particular facts of the case pass through the ‘gateway’ of section 107 and allow a section 106 discharge without conviction to be granted, the Court must consider the gravity of the offending.
14 It was stated in Delaney v Police that the words “gravity of offence” are to be read as:
…including not only the offence itself but also anything that may affect the Court’s subsequent assessment of overall culpability. That includes guilty pleas, expressions of remorse and Court’s assessment of how likely it is that the offender will reoffend, the victim’s perspective, and any consequence already suffered by way of reparation, community work, or publicity.
15 It is accepted that a breach of protection order can be a serious offence as these orders are generally put in place for a valid reason. However, it is submitted that the gravity of the offending is at the lower end for this type of offending. The following factors are submitted as relevant for consideration in this case when assessing the gravity of the offending:
a. Th nature of the charge
b. The circumstances of the offending
c. Mr Solt has no previous convictions
d. Mr Solt pled guilty at an early opportunity
e. Mr Solt has been completing counselling to learn from the offending so that it is not repeated
f. The protection order was a temporary protection order, and has not been made final.
16 Breaches of a protection order can vary widely in terms of severity. In W v Police, the appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of breach of protection order for sending unsolicited text messages. The District Court Judge found that, while the breach itself was not the worst and sat at the higher end of a low-level breach, the Court was required to uphold the integrity of protection orders and declined the application for discharge without conviction. The appellant was convicted and discharged.
17 On appeal, the High Court found the Judge erred when assessing the gravity of the offending, and that it is not the case that every breach of a protection order is serious requiring the Court to uphold its integrity by entering a conviction. The High Court found that persistent texting was very much at the low end of seriousness for this kind of offending.
18 It is accepted that breaches of protection order are moderately serious offences, but it is submitted that Mr Solt’s breach was at the lowest end of the spectrum, and lower than that in W v Police.
19 Mr Solt was nowhere near the protected person when the offending occurred, and while he breached the protection order on the day of the offending, there were a number of other factors going on in the background that affected Mr Solt’s decision on that day, regarding risks to his safety having been assaulted the previous day.
20 The temporary protection order has not been made final. This both indicates that this offending is not part of a broader pattern of behaviour, and that offending of this sort is not likely to happen again, as Mr Solt is not the respondent of any current protection orders.
21 Mr Solt has also participated in counselling since the offending in question.
22 It is submitted that all of these factors make it very unlikely that Mr Solt will reoffend in this way, or at all, and that these steps he has taken to avoid any risk of reoffending also serve to lower the gravity of his offending to very low.
Consequences of conviction
Employment Applications
23 As outlined in his affidavit, the main consequences of a conviction for Mr Solt is a risk that his chances for employment will be impacted.
24 Mr Solt has a number of physical disabilities, and there a number of careers he will not physically be able to pursue. It is likely that if he were to get a job, it would need to be in a job with minimal physical requirements, like an office job. His physical disabilities will already pose a boundary that an employer will need to overcome and make accommodations for, and the added hurdle of a conviction would make it much less likely that any employer would take that risk.
25 Mr Solt did very well at his university courses, but did not complete his studies, so does not have any tertiary degree. This will also hamper him from getting an office job.
26 It is also noted that Mr Solt has a daughter with the victim. Mr Solt increasing his earning capacity would also be in the interests of the victim, as it would increase the amount of child support he could pay to support their daughter.
General consequences of a conviction
27 The Courts have recognised that there are general consequences which flow from a conviction. In Albert v Police Toogood J observed that “a conviction in itself is a consequence, especially where the offender has no previous record of offending.”
28 The Court of Appeal recognised in R v Findlay,where someone of previous good character falls from grace that is punishment in itself. It is submitted that the consequences of a conviction for this type of criminal offence would be significant for Mr Solt. He appears before the court with no criminal history.
Proportionality
29 The final consideration for the Court is whether the resulting conviction would be out of all proportion to the offending. It is a balancing exercise that requires weighing the previous two steps as to the gravity of the offence and consequences of a conviction and deciding whether these would be out of all proportion to the offending.
30 As discussed above, it is submitted that the gravity of offending is low having regard to the nature of the offending itself and Mr Solt’s personal circumstances, and the steps he has taken since the offending.
31 It is submitted that the indirect and direct consequences of a conviction on Mr Solt would be out of proportion to the gravity of the offending.
32 Counsel submits no further deterrent purpose would be served by entering a conviction, particularly given the protection order is no longer in place.
33 Mr Solt has taken the requisite steps to rehabilitate himself already.
34 Marking mr Solt’s record would disadvantage him, and his family, and would not serve any of the purposes set out in the Sentencing Act 2002.
35 It is submitted that the balance falls in favour of a discharge without conviction. For a person who is already subject to disadvantage as a result of his physical disabilities and is looking to move forward from this event, the consequences noted are out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.
Conclusion
36 It is submitted that the test under s 107 of the Act is satisfied and it is appropriate that David Solt be dealt with by way of a discharge without conviction.
14 March 2024
Sophie Barclay
Counsel for David Jeremiah Solt
________________________________________________________________
Presented for filing by:C Gisler
Wellington Public Defender
Counsel Appearing:S Barclay
Level 9
Prime Property Tower
86-90 Lambton Quay
Wellington Central, Wellington 6011
Telephone:04 4953642
Fax:
Email:Sophie.Barclay@
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AT PORIRUA
I TE KŌTI Ā ROHE
KI PORIRUA
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
v
DAVID JEREMIAH SOLT
________________________________________________________________
AFFIRMATION OF DAVID JEREMIAH SOLT
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Presented for filing by:C Gisler
Wellington Public Defender
Counsel Appearing:S Barclay
Level 9
Prime Property Tower
86-90 Lambton Quay
Wellington Central, Wellington 6011
Telephone:04 4953642
Fax:
Email:Sophie.Barclay@pds.govt.nz
I, DAVID JEREMIAH SOLT, Unemployed, of Wellington affirm:
1 I used to be in a relationship with Amanda Ward. We got married in 2007, and had a baby, Lily, together at the end on 2022. We lived together in our marital home at 17 Princeton Road, Raumatibeach.
2 We separated in February 2023, and I remained in the house while Amanda took Lily and moved out. My medical conditions made it very difficult for me to leave. It is also very difficult for me to find mobility-friendly, affordable housing in Wellington.
3 I am diagnosed as having chronic fatigue syndrome and as being housebound, as set out in the attached report A from my doctor. I have very poor mobility and I can best describe it as that my back, legs and arms do not work properly. I cannot do physical work, but am able to do mental and clerical work.
4 I attended university for two years, and did very well in my classes, as my attached transcript (B)shows. Unfortunately, my health conditions obliged me to leave study.
5 I had been living in the house for 11 years, and it had been set up for me. It was a 1 story house, asI really struggle with stairs.
6 When we separated, Amanda initially attempted to have me trespassed from the house. However, this did not work as I also had an interest in the home as it was our relationship property. She did not attempt to apply for the protection order until well after she had moved out, and I had stayed in the property as even with a baby, it is easier for her to find a house than it is for me.
7 Once the protection order was issued, I was aware she was deferring the end date of it until my father returned from China. I had been staying in my house up until then because it was my house as much as it was Amanda’s, and I did not want to leave. After the protection order and ancillary occupation order were issued, I found it very difficult to find a place that would accommodate me that I could afford.
8 The protection order and occupation order were only made on a temporary basis, and are no longer in place. No final protection order was made.
9 On 25 April my father came around to talk to me about leaving. I was reluctant to leave my house, and very scared about going back to the family home and what it would be like being around my family. In the course of that conversation, we argued and my father hit me. The police were called, and they made the attached report, at C. I did not want my father charged with anything, as I know I needed to rely on him and it would make things even worse if he was facing charges because of me, so I asked the police not to charge him if he left.
10 He left, and I felt safer, but was still pretty upset by the day’s events. Please find attached a police report confirming this occurred.
11 When my father came over the next day with the police, the police informed me that I could either leave with my father or be arrested and leave with them. I knew I was leaving either way, but I really didn’t want to leave with my father. I knew at least the police would not hit me.
12 I am asking for a discharge without conviction as I am concerned about the effect a conviction will have on my life.
13 Due to my physical disabilities the options of jobs that are available to me are already extremely limited. I am extremely concerned that a conviction on my record will make this process even more difficult than it already is.
14 While I am not in employment currently, I am worried that a conviction will rule out the possibility of me ever being able to enter employment. 15 I understand that I handled the situation wrong and I am sorry for my actions. I would be grateful for the opportunity to move forwards in life, and put myself in a better position, and be able to support myself and my daughter.
16 I respectfully ask the Court to please grant me a discharge without conviction.
AFFIRMED at Porirua this day of2024 before me: | |
A Justice of the Peace/Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand/Registrar
________________________________________________________________
Presented for filing by:C Gisler
Wellington Public Defender
Counsel Appearing:S Barclay
Level 9
Prime Property Tower
86-90 Lambton Quay
Wellington Central, Wellington 6011
Telephone:04 4953642
Fax:
Email:Sophie.Barclay@pds.govt.
Comments
Post a Comment