Broad v Police

[2009] NZCA 80

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA774/2008
[2009] NZCA 80

BETWEENWARREN DOUGLAS BROAD

Applicant

ANDTHE POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:24 February 2009

Court:Chambers, Gendall and Asher JJ

Counsel:Z K Mohamed for Applicant

M D Downs for Respondent

Judgment:16 March 2009 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for special leave to appeal is declined. 

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Chambers J)

[1]       This application for special leave to appeal raises exactly the same points as were raised in Gallichan v The Police [2000] NZCA 79. In this case, Mr Mohamed, for Warren Broad, took the point before Judge David Harvey that the police officer who administered the breath and blood tests to Mr Broad had not conveyed adequately to him his right to a lawyer at no cost. His Honour found on the facts that the officer had adequately conveyed to Mr Broad his rights and that Mr Broad had indicated clearly that he understood the information given to him. The judge found Mr Broad “made an informed decision” when he decided he did not want to consult a lawyer: Police v Broad DC MAN CRI 2008‑092‑002201 19 June 2008 at [52].  The judge convicted and fined Mr Broad. 

[2]       Mr Broad appealed.  His appeal, like Mr Gallichan’s, was heard by Keane J.  It suffered the same fate: HC AK CRI 2008‑404‑00189 2 October 2008.  Keane J subsequently, on 31 October last year, declined leave to appeal, on the same grounds as he had declined leave in Mr Broad’s case. 

[3]       Before us, Mr Mohamed sought special leave to appeal.  He raised the same five questions he raised in Mr Gallichan’s case.  For the reasons we declined Mr Gallichan’s application, we decline Mr Broad’s. 

Solicitors:

Zahir K Mohamed, Manukau, for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington, for Respondent