Anderson v Police - [2018] NZHC 2408

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CRI-2018-476-000004

[2018] NZHC 2408

BETWEEN
MATTHEW IAN ANDERSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 7 September 2018

Appearances:

T J Jackson for the Appellant

H V Bennett for the Respondent

Judgment:

13 September 2018

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Introduction

[1] On 18 June 2018, Judge Saunders in the District Court convicted Mr Anderson of dangerous driving and imposed a fine of $1000, along with Court costs and witnesses’ expenses. Mr Anderson was also disqualified from driving for six months.

[2] Mr Anderson appeals his conviction on the grounds there was not sufficient evidence his driving was dangerous and the prosecution was unfair in not calling as a witness the driver of another vehicle, Mr Quantock. He also appeals the imposition of the six months’ disqualification from driving.

ANDERSON v POLICE [2018] NZHC 2408 [13 September 2018]

Facts

[3] Mr Anderson had been angered by people driving along the road where he lives with his family at night sounding an airhorn, something that appears to have been an ongoing issue. At about 7.45 pm on 1 August 2017, it happened again and Mr Anderson left his property in a Holden Commodore and pursued the other vehicle.

[4] The first part of the events involved him trying to catch up with an orange Nissan Navara driven by Shaun Quantock. Emma Little was a passenger in the Nissan. For a distance of 43 kilometres, through Winchester and Temuka to Washdyke, over an approximate 40 minute period, the two vehicles were involved in what appeared to have been, at times, a high-speed pursuit.

[5] There was a dispute over who was the aggressor in these events. Mr Anderson disputed that he was travelling dangerously. He said his sole intent was to get close enough to identify the number plate of the Nissan, which he was only able to do towards the end of the trip as there had been mud on the vehicle obscuring his view. Mr Quantock did not give evidence, but Ms Little described what appeared to be a deliberate attempt to try and pull them over on more than one occasion on their trip to Timaru. She was sufficiently concerned to have contacted Police.

[6] Dean Atkinson also gave evidence as an independent witness to the events. He was concerned about the way the vehicles were driving and decided to follow them at a safe distance.

[7] Once the vehicles reached Washdyke, Mr Anderson says he decided to abandon the chase as Mr Quantock was driving very dangerously. In Washdyke, Mr Quantock and Ms Little pulled into a petrol station and met the Police as arranged. Mr Atkinson followed and gave a statement to Police.

[8] Ms Little had given a statement to the effect that Mr Anderson had thrown a baseball bat at the vehicle, but Mr Anderson strongly disputed this.

Jurisdiction and approach on appeal against conviction

[9]The appellant has…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Anderson v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NZHC 2408
Decision Date: 13 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Anderson v Police, the appellant, Mr Anderson, appealed his conviction and sentence for dangerous driving. Mr Anderson had pursued another vehicle over 43 kilometres in an attempt to obtain the registration number of the vehicle. The District Court had convicted Mr Anderson and disqualified him from driving for six months. Mr Anderson appealed on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence that his driving was dangerous and that the prosecution had unfairly not called as a witness the driver of the other vehicle, Mr Quantock. He also appealed the imposition of the six months’ disqualification from driving.

The High Court found that the District Court had not erred in its assessment of the evidence and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The Court found that the Judge’s decision was based on both a specific incident and the overall manner of Mr Anderson’s driving. The Court found that the Judge was entitled to treat the evidence of an independent witness, Mr Atkinson, as corroborating the evidence of Ms Little, a passenger in the Nissan. The Court found that the absence of Mr Quantock as a witness did not result in unfairness or a miscarriage of justice.

Regarding the sentence, the Court found that the District Court was correct in not considering that there were special reasons that meant Mr Anderson should not be disqualified for six months. The Court found that dangerous driving was not the only course of action available to Mr Anderson and that he went beyond what was justified.

The appeal was dismissed. The disqualification was to take effect from 7.00 am on 15 September 2018.

Orders