Andrews v Police - [2016] NZHC 2231

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-409-000119 [2016] NZHC 2231

BETWEEN
RONALD FALCON ANDREWS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 20 September 2016

Appearances:

Appellant Appears In Person
D L Elsmore for Respondent

Judgment:

21 September 2016

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] Mr Ronald Falcon Andrews (Mr Andrews) appeared before me today as a self-represented litigant, on his application for leave to appeal a judgment of Brown J in this Court.1

[2] The proceedings relating to this judgment stem from an incident which occurred on 3 September 2012 while Mr Andrews was driving a RedBus in Christchurch city. Mr Andrews was consequently charged with careless driving. He did not appear in person in the District Court at the summons date, but pleaded guilty by letter received by the Court on 25 September 2012. Based on this letter, on 3
October 2012, Mr Andrews was convicted of careless driving and sentenced to a fine of $300 and Court costs of $132.89.

[3] On 11 March 2014, Mr Andrews, via an email, sought a rehearing. On

13 March 2014, he filed a formal application for rehearing, which was opposed by

1 Andrews v Police [2015] NZHC 211.

ANDREWS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2231 [21 September 2016]

the Police. The rehearing application was declined by Justices of the Peace on 3

April 2014.

[4] On 3 November 2014, Mr Andrews then filed a notice of appeal against his conviction. Brown J in this Court extended the time for filing this notice of appeal, to allow Mr Andrews to bring his appeal.2 Some time later, on 19 February 2015, in a reasoned decision given in this Court, Brown J dismissed Mr Andrews’ appeal against conviction.

[5] On 10 August 2016, long out of time, Mr Andrews filed in this Court his present application for leave to appeal the 19 February 2015 Brown J judgment to the Court of Appeal.

Jurisdiction – leave to appeal

[6] Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the CPA) provides that this proceeding must continue in accordance with the law as it was before its commencement date, namely, when the information for careless driving was laid. This was 24 September 2012. Accordingly, s 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act
1957 (the SPA) governs this application.

[7] Mr Andrews may, with the leave of this Court, appeal to the Court of Appeal against any determination of the High Court on a question of law arising in any general appeal.3 If the High Court refuses leave, the Court of Appeal may grant special leave to appeal.

[8] The High Court may grant leave if, in the Court’s opinion, Mr Andrews’
appeal poses a question of law which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.4

2 At [5].
3 Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 144(1).
4 Section 144(2).

Jurisdiction to entertain appeal against conviction following guilty…

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 Andrews 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: [2016] NZHC 2231
Decision Date: 21 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Andrews v Police involved Mr Ronald Falcon Andrews, who sought leave to appeal a judgment from the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry. The appeal stemmed from Mr Andrews' conviction for careless driving in 2012. Despite entering a guilty plea, he contested the conviction, claiming a miscarriage of justice, deception by the police, disproportionate consequences of the conviction, and escalating financial hardship. The High Court, presided over by Gendall J, was tasked with deciding whether Mr Andrews' appeal posed a question of law significant enough to warrant consideration by the Court of Appeal. The court also examined the timeliness of the appeal and Mr Andrews' request for various remedies.

The legal issues centered around whether Mr Andrews' appeal posed a question of law that should be submitted to the Court of Appeal for its general or public importance. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the appeal was filed within the permissible 21-day period from the original judgment, and whether Mr Andrews' claims for miscarriage of justice, deception, disproportionate consequences, and financial hardship constituted valid legal questions. Furthermore, the court considered the remedies Mr Andrews sought, including termination of his conviction and compensation.

Gendall J concluded that Mr Andrews' appeal did not present any question of law warranting submission to the Court of Appeal. The court found that Mr Andrews' arguments were based on factual disputes and misunderstandings rather than legal errors. Specifically, the court dismissed Mr Andrews' claims of deception by the police, noting that the police did not mislead him regarding the consequences of his guilty plea. Additionally, the court held that Mr Andrews' assertion that the consequences of his conviction were disproportionate to the offence did not meet the threshold for appellate review, as it did not involve a misinterpretation of statutory language or an error in legal reasoning. The court also rejected Mr Andrews' claims of financial hardship as not being questions of law. Finally, the court noted that while the Court of Appeal could set aside the conviction if it allowed the appeal, it could not award the compensation Mr Andrews sought. Therefore, the court declined Mr Andrews' application for leave to appeal.

The court dismissed Mr Andrews' application for leave to appeal, finding that no question of law of sufficient general or public importance warranted review by the Court of Appeal. The court also noted that the appeal was filed well beyond the permissible 21-day period.

Orders