Andrews v Police - [2015] NZHC 211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2014-409-119 [2015] NZHC 211

RONALD FALCON ANDREWS Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 12 February 2015

Counsel:

Appellant in Person

C D Newman for Respondent

Judgment:

19 February 2015

JUDGMENT OF BROWN J

[1] The appellant was charged with operating a vehicle, namely a RedBus, on a road (Athelstan Street) carelessly on 3 September 2012. His interview at the Hornby Police Station on 20 September 2012 was videoed. The appellant did not appear at the summons date of 3 October 2012 but sent an undated letter to the Court, received on 25 September 2012, which stated:

I wish to plead guilty to the offence and avoid appearing in court accordingly.

[2] On 3 October 2012 the appellant was convicted on the charge of operating a vehicle carelessly and fined $300 with Court costs of $132.89.

[3] The appellant sought a rehearing which was opposed by the police in a submission filed on 18 March 2014. The application for a rehearing was considered
by Justices of the Peace on 3 April 2014 and was declined.

ANDREWS v NZ POLICE [2015] NZHC 211 [19 February 2015]

[4] On 3 November 2014 the appellant filed a notice of appeal against his conviction. The grounds of appeal specified in the notice are as follows:

(a) the appellant requests a clean slate having served 2 years of unfair conviction;

(b)the ongoing conviction is totally out of proportion to the gravity of the offending;

(c) the appellant was denied a rehearing despite having legitimate reasons;

(d) the appellant has been treated very unfairly by the police;

(e) the conviction is causing considerable ongoing financial hardship; (f) the conviction has cost the appellant over $50,000 in lost income;
(g)the conviction is excluding the appellant from employment opportunities;

(h)the claims made against the appellant were malicious, false and exaggerated;

(i)the offence was described by the police as at the very lowest level of offending;

(j) the appellant has not had any other convictions.

[5] The notice of appeal was filed out of time on 3 November 2014. In my discretion I extend the time for the filing of the notice of appeal.

[6] On 11 December 2014 the appellant filed an application to adduce further evidence in the form of a DVD of his interview with the police on
20 September 2012. The Crown did not oppose his application, However the Crown also sought to adduce further evidence in the form of the video footage of the incident. On 14 January 2015 leave was granted by Justice Mander to both parties to adduce further evidence.

Approach on appeal

[7] The jurisdiction to hear this appeal arises under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 (the Act) as the information was laid on 3 September 2012. An appeal against conviction is by way of rehearing. Section 121(2) of the Act allows the High Court to confirm a conviction, set it aside or amend it.

[8] The approach of the Court…

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: [2015] NZHC 211
Decision Date: 19 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Andrews v Police involved Ronald Falcon Andrews, who was charged with operating a vehicle carelessly on 3 September 2012. Andrews was operating a RedBus when he allegedly collided with another vehicle while turning left. His interview with the police was videoed, and he did not appear at the summons date of 3 October 2012, instead sending a letter to the Court stating his intention to plead guilty and avoid appearing in court. On 3 October 2012, Andrews was convicted of the offence and fined $300 with Court costs of $132.89. He subsequently appealed the conviction, claiming that the conviction was unfair and out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. The appeal was heard by Justice Brown.

The legal issues in this case were whether the appellant's conviction was a miscarriage of justice, whether the conviction was out of proportion to the gravity of the offence, and whether the appellant's driving was careless. The Crown argued that the appellant's appeal should be dismissed as it was not in exceptional circumstances, and that the appellant knew the charge he was pleading to and knew the charge was serious. The appellant argued that his driving was not careless and that the conviction was unfair and out of proportion to the gravity of the offence.

The court found that the appellant's driving was demonstrably careless, and that the conviction was warranted in this instance. The court noted that the appellant himself viewed his driving as unacceptable, commenting that he made a "bad decision" and that he "obviously made a number of mistakes on the day which I don’t normally do". The court found that the appellant's driving fell below the standard of the reasonable and prudent driver, and that the conviction was not out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction.

In summary, the court found that the appellant's conviction was valid, and that the conviction was not out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the conviction stood.

Orders