A man who had his conviction for breaching lockdown wiped over a procedural error has failed in a bid to further “restore his reputation”.
Fraser Wright Maddigan, of Christchurch was charged under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act after police found him in his car in Queenstown and Te Anau on consecutive nights in March 2020.
While police recorded him saying: “he was having a break from home and self-isolating in his car in Fiordland, as well as doing some reconnaissance for his work in pest control”, it remained unclear whether Maddigan accepted that.
He appeared in the Invercargill District Court a few days later where he pleaded guilty after being declined bail by Judge Bernadette Farnan.
Maddigan was fined $1000 and ordered to pay $130 court costs.
More than a year later the High Court ruled there had been a “fundamental error” made by the judge and the duty lawyer who had assisted the defendant.
The lawyer advised Maddigan and the court that he could be refused bail if there was just cause for his continued detention.
That was incorrect.
Justice Gerald Nation said it would have been unlikely the man would have pleaded guilty had he been bailed, as was his right.
“By a narrow margin” he allowed the appeal on that basis – dismissing other arguments Maddigan had put forward – and sent the case back the District Court.
There, the police abandoned the prosecution because “the public interest did not favour continuing with it”, particularly given the defendant was a first-time offender and had not re-offended in the interim.
Despite walking away from the experience without a conviction, Maddigan recently took his case to the Court of Appeal.
“Mr Maddigan seeks various pronouncements from this court regarding the merits of his broader grounds of appeal,” said Justice Sarah Katz.
“He believes that this is necessary to restore his reputation.”
The Court of Appeal noted the appeal had been brought more than a year out of time, and there had been no explanation offered by Maddigan for the delay.
Justice Katz, in a decision released yesterday, said the man raised no issues of public importance that merited a hearing.
“The key factor here is simply that there is no risk of a miscarriage of justice that requires (further) appellate intervention.”
