A v Police HC Tauranga CRI 2008-470-1 - [2008] NZHC 391

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI 2008-470-1

A
Appellant
v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 31 March 2008 (Heard at Rotorua)

Appearances: Appellant in person
S Bridges and C Harold for Respondent

Judgment: 31 March 2008

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J

Parties / Solicitors:
Miss D A , Appellant,Tauranga
Mr S Bridges / Ms C Harold, Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

A V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC TAU CRI 2008-470-1 31 March 2008

[1] Miss A appeals against her conviction in the District Court on a charge of driving with excess breath alcohol at a level of 580 micrograms. Miss A appears on her own behalf.

[2] She was convicted in the District Court at Tauranga on 18 August 2007 following a defended hearing. I have, of course, been supplied with the notes of evidence as well as the oral judgment. Evidence was given by two police officers, Inspector Clement and Constable Morrah. Miss A cross-examined both witnesses. In the course of the hearing Miss A also made submissions to the Judge concerning what she described as “identity theft and fraud” relating to her name, and her contention that Inspector Clement was not present when she was stopped and the breath test administered.

[3] These matters are referred to in the judgment of the District Court Judge. He came to the clear conclusion on the evidence that the charge was established and Miss A was convicted.

[4] On this appeal I have received written submissions from Miss A and I received further oral submissions from her. In the course of those oral submissions Miss A confirmed that there are two central points on appeal and two other matters, which I will refer to in a moment.

[5] The first point on appeal is that there has been, as Miss A describes it, “identity theft and fraud” by the New Zealand Police and other government agencies in respect of her name. The essence of the point made here is that in a number of the court documents Miss A ’s surname is spelt entirely in capitals. I am satisfied that that is not a ground upon which I could overturn the conviction because the way in which a name is presented typographically does not in any way bear upon the essential ingredients of the charge that had to be proved. And there was no challenge by Miss A in the District Court or in this Court to the proposition that she was the person in fact stopped following which the breath test was administered.

[6] Miss A made the further point that in the submissions to me from the Crown her entire name is presented in capitals on the cover sheet. As I pointed out to Miss A , this could not have any bearing on the validity of the conviction in the District Court. It is simply a convention to present the name in capitals – it…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading A v Police HC Tauranga CRI 2008-470-1

Details

AGLC: A v Police HC Tauranga CRI 2008-470-1 [2008] NZHC 391
Case: [2008] NZHC 391
Decision Date: 31 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Tauranga Registry, Miss A appealed against her conviction for driving with excess breath alcohol at a level of 580 micrograms. The appeal was heard on 31 March 2008, with Miss A representing herself and S Bridges and C Harold appearing for the Respondent, the New Zealand Police. The District Court had convicted Miss A on 18 August 2007 after a defended hearing, with Inspector Clement and Constable Morrah providing evidence. Miss A cross-examined both witnesses and raised submissions concerning identity theft and fraud, as well as Inspector Clement's presence during the incident.

The central legal issues in the appeal were whether the conviction was valid given the alleged identity theft and fraud, and whether Inspector Clement was indeed present when the breath test was administered. Miss A argued that the typographical presentation of her name in court documents indicated fraud, but the court found that this did not affect the conviction's validity. The court also dismissed Miss A's argument that Inspector Clement was not present during the incident, as Inspector Clement provided evidence confirming his presence. The court concluded that the District Court's decision was correct, and no prejudice resulted from Inspector Clement's absence in the initial documents.

Additionally, Miss A raised two other matters, including a claim for restitution, which the court found to be dependent on a wrongful conviction. The court dismissed these points as well, finding that Miss A's conviction was properly entered. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the notional appeal against sentence was also dismissed as no submissions were made regarding the sentence.

Orders