Andrews v Police - [2017] NZCA 111

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA514/2016
[2017] NZCA 111

BETWEEN	RONALD FALCON ANDREWS Appellant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	7 March 2017
Court:	Kós P, Courtney and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person M L Wong for Respondent
Judgment:	5 April 2017 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for special leave to appeal is dismissed.
BThe application for name suppression is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

Introduction

In September 2012, Ronald Andrews was working as a bus driver in Christchurch. He was then 65 years old and had been driving for Red Bus for some three years. At about 5 pm he was involved in a minor accident. He wanted to turn left from Athelstan Street into Barrington Street. The left turning lane was not moving so he drove into an incorrect lane to make a left turn around the stationary traffic. As he rounded the corner he found that he needed to pull left to avoid oncoming traffic on Barrington Street and, in doing so, collided with the rear of a vehicle travelling in the same direction. No one was injured. If there was damage (and Mr Andrews says there was none) it must have been very minor.
In October 2012 Mr Andrews appeared in the District Court before two Justices of the Peace and pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle carelessly. He was convicted and fined $300 with costs of $132.89. Although this was a standard penalty for the admitted offending, Mr Andrews is aggrieved because he understood from what the police told him that if he pleaded guilty he would only be fined and did not realise that he would receive a conviction. In April 2014 he applied unsuccessfully for a rehearing in the District Court. In February 2015 he appealed unsuccessfully to the High Court.[1] In September 2016 he applied unsuccessfully for leave to appeal to this Court.[2] He now applies to this Court for special leave to appeal.
[1]Andrews v New Zealand Police [2015] NZHC 211.
[2]Andrews v New Zealand Police [2016] NZHC 2231.
The application falls to be considered under s 144(3) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The prerequisites for special leave to appeal under that provision are those described by this Court in R v Slater. There must be a question of law; the question of law must be one that ought to be submitted to this Court by reason of its general or public importance or for some other reason; and this Court must be of the opinion that it ought to be submitted.[3] This Court went on to make the following comments about the approach to be taken on an application for special leave:[4]
Section 114 was not intended to provide a second tier of appeal from decisions of the District Court in proceedings under the Summary Proceedings Act. Parliament intended such proceedings to be brought to finality with the defendant…

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 Andrews v Police

Details

AGLC: Andrews v Police [2017] NZCA 111
Case: [2017] NZCA 111
Decision Date: 5 April 2017 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald Andrews was convicted in the District Court of operating a vehicle carelessly and fined $300 with costs of $132.89. He appealed to the High Court and then to the Court of Appeal, seeking special leave to appeal and name suppression. Andrews argued that he was misled by the police into believing that pleading guilty would result in a fine only, and not a conviction. He also claimed that the consequences of the conviction were out of proportion to the gravity of the offence, causing him significant financial hardship and stress.

The Court of Appeal considered whether there was a question of law that justified granting special leave to appeal. The Court noted that an appeal against conviction after a guilty plea is only entertained in exceptional circumstances and that the appellant must show a miscarriage of justice would result if the conviction is not overturned. The Court of Appeal found that Andrews' questions did not arise from any error in the High Court's approach or conclusions and were not of general or public importance. The Court also found that Andrews did not provide sufficient information to the High Court to accurately identify the consequences of the conviction or conclude that those consequences were out of proportion to the gravity of the offending.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for special leave to appeal and declined the application for name suppression. The Court found that Andrews did not offer any explanation as to how publication of his name would cause him extreme hardship and that the matter had already been in the public arena since 2012.

Orders