Conviction overturned due to impact on man's mana

Man has conviction overturned due to impact on his mana. Photo: RNZ / Dan Cook.

A man has had a conviction for obstructing a police officer overturned due to the impact it would have on his mana.

Joshua Green, also known as Joshua Turner, was convicted last year of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty, after being found guilty in a judge alone trial before Judge Greg Hollister-Jones. He was fined $500.

The offending occurred on the morning of August 30, 2022. Green, 50, was the director of a logging company and arrived at the scene of a crash on the Napier-Taupō road, SH5, where one of the company’s logging trucks had collided with a ute.

Green was a close friend of the driver of the truck and went looking for him.

Judge Hollister-Jones said Green began wandering around the crash scene, and walked up to the ute to take photos while one of its occupants was nearby being treated by paramedics.

A senior constable at the crash scene instructed Green not to wander across the scene and told him to stay where he was.

Judge Hollister-Jones said Green was not concerned about whether his actions hindered police in doing their job as long as he could do what he felt he needed to do.

Green argued that he should be discharged without conviction due to the effect a conviction would have on his ability to hold a firearms licence, some personal difficulties related to the health of his infant son, and the effect a conviction would have on his mana in the community.

Judge Hollister-Jones found no grounds for a discharge without conviction and said the effect on Green’s mana would be “the ordinary consequence of a conviction”, and the consequences of a conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.

Green appealed the conviction and sentence. He said Judge Hollister-Jones had erred by finding he had obstructed the senior constable, and had erred by finding that the effect on mana was an ordinary consequence of conviction.

The appeal, opposed by police, was heard by Justice Peter Andrew in the High Court at Rotorua last month.

A senior constable at the crash scene instructed Green not to wander across the scene and told him to stay where he was.

In a recently released decision Justice Andrew said he found no merit in the argument that Green had not obstructed the senior constable.

He said Green’s offending was low-level, and noted that Green had a professional and personal interest in what was going on at the crash scene.

The judge also noted the findings of an Independent Police Conduct Authority investigation, triggered by a complaint by Green.

The IPCA’s decision revealed that the senior constable had told Green that his company “had a bad reputation in Taupō”. Judge Andrew said that might go some way to explain why Green behaved the way he did.

Justice Andrew said Green had demonstrated genuine remorse for his offending, and had apologised to the senior constable in a letter.

Green’s appeal placed great emphasis and weight on the impact of a conviction on his mana.

The judge heard that Green was a kaumātua and leader within Ngāti Tūwharetoa. He was described by the chair of the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, John Bishara, as “a great leader in our community”.

Joshua Green, also known as Joshua Turner, obstructed a police officer at the scene of a crash.

Green is a director of the Central North Island Wood Council, and was an elected trustee for many Māori land trusts. His company Green Transport Ltd. was a strong supporter of local community sports clubs, and the judge had “significant references and letters of support before the Court testifying to his [Green’s] significant roles within the community generally”

Bishara provided an affidavit to say a conviction would have a significant effect on Green’s mana.

Bishara said that, from a Māori perspective, “whakamā (shame, embarrassment, and loss of mana) is a very real and deep burden and/or penalty for a Māori person to carry and is a very real consequence of a conviction”.

Justice Andrew said “I find that the consequences of a conviction on Mr Green and, in particular, the impact on his mana, would be significant”.

He also found that Judge Hollister-Jones had erred by finding that the consequences to Green were the ordinary consequences of a conviction.

He noted that he came to that conclusion with the advantage of having material that Judge Hollister-Jones didn’t.

“A discharge without conviction can serve to restore, or prevent the loss of, Mr Green’s mana,” Justice Andrew said.

The appeal was granted and Green was discharged without conviction.

7 comments

Here We Go Again

Posted on 22-03-2024 08:27 | By Yadick

Just another dividing racial loophole against the laws of New Zealand. How many times is this so-called mana loss going to be flogged and flaunted now.


NOT personal...

Posted on 22-03-2024 10:48 | By OG-2024

WITH due respect to the court and both Justices, as well as not meaning to be personal in anyway towards those involved here.

We live in a country where we CLAIM to be one people, a united multicultural people. We CLAIM to have one law for all.
We also constantly find that higher proportions of some ethnicities and socio-economic groups would appear to be greatly higher in the statistics relating to convictions and incarceration. I accept that there is a huge element of personal choice/ lifestyle also involved in those numbers.
WHAT I also observe is a high number of " offenders" who on the face of it at least, either are involved in sport/ culture at some prominent level who seem to point this out and rely on the impact any conviction would have, when it comes to sentencing and the " softer" penalties handed out


What a joke!

Posted on 22-03-2024 12:04 | By fair game

At least they named him - no doubt his crime is a badge of honour for him and his whanau. Definitely a divided racist country. One rule for some, one rule for the others.


Mr. Green's mistake.

Posted on 22-03-2024 12:40 | By morepork

He disregarded the instruction from the Senior Constable. (Doesn't that undermine the mana of the New Zealand Police force?) We should expect Mr. Green to suffer the same consequences as any other citizen who disobeyed direct instruction from a Police Officer in the execution of his duty. However, we find there are circumstances where a conviction would seriously undermine Mr. Green's position in a community where he does valuable service, which means the sentence, for him, is more than it would be for a "normal" citizen. Given that the offence was pretty trivial in it's effects, it cannot be just, to punish him more than would normally be the case. The moral here is that some sectors of the community have been encouraged to disrespect the Police and to consider themselves above the Law. That needs to be addressed, but it is a very fine line to walk.


Wowee

Posted on 22-03-2024 14:27 | By the_panic

Green:
Dear appellate court, the lower court convicted me. Now I am sad and ashamed. Please overturn my conviction?

Appellate court:
Oh the nasty man made you sad? Sounds terrible! OK - discharge w/o conviction.

Public:
Uh, what?


Setting a Precedent

Posted on 22-03-2024 15:44 | By Equality

The ruling in Green's case is likely to set a precedent for how future cases are decided.
One rule for some - one rule for others. Nothing has changed!


@Equality

Posted on 23-03-2024 15:06 | By morepork

You may be correct about a precedent, but you are only seeing the surface. Courts take a larger view and so they should. Justice is seen to be tempered with mercy. It would be wrong to punish Mr. Green MORE than anybody else, who committed the same offense. The court realized this, and was flexible. Over centuries, the Law and the enforcement of it has had to be tempered to suit special conditions and exceptions. What emerges is a more understanding Justice system where people get a chance to be heard and to submitit their "extenuating circumstances". It is far too easy to say that the colour of his skin got him off. His culture (which is part of OUR culture) allowed him to plead for a consideration. The Court considered and accepted that plea. The offense was trivial; had it been murder, the outcome would be different.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.