Chadderton v New Zealand Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 129/2014
[2015] NZSC 30

BETWEEN	ISSAC JOHN CHADDERTON Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	William Young, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	A G Speed and D H P Schellenberg for Applicant P D Marshall for Respondent
Judgment:	31 March 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal,[1] rejecting his appeal from a decision of the High Court[2] upholding a conviction entered against him in the District Court[3] for driving with an excess proportion of alcohol in his blood.
[1]Chadderton v R [2014] NZCA 528.
[2]Chadderton v Police [2013] NZHC 2672.
[3]Police v Chadderton DC Auckland CRI-2011-044-1152, 3 April 2013.
In issue are two periods of delay which occurred between the applicant failing a breath screening test and him arriving at the police station where the evidential breath test was administered. The first delay was of five to 10 minutes while one of the two attending police officers completed the taking of a statement from a witness. The second, of approximately 30 minutes, was when the two police officers stopped to attend to a van which had broken down just before an on-ramp to a motorway creating a situation which they considered to be a risk to road safety.
The Court of Appeal held that there was no breach of s 69 of the Land Transport Act 1998 and, as well, that on the facts of the case, the applicant was not unreasonably detained in breach of s 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The proposed grounds of appeal are that (a) the Court of Appeal did not follow Birchler v Police[4] and (b) that the Court of Appeal’s conclusion as to the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention was wrong.
[4]Birchler v Police [2010] NZSC 109, [2011] 1 NZLR 169.
The facts of the present case differ substantially from those of Birchler (in which a required procedural step had not occurred at all). And in any event, on the findings of the Court of Appeal on the lawfulness of the detention, there was no deviation from the process required under the statute. The issue whether the delays rendered the detention of the applicant unlawful is very factual and does not raise a question of law of public or general importance. As well, there is no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Issac John Chadderton applied for leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal which had rejected his appeal against a conviction for driving with an excess proportion of alcohol in his blood. The appeal was from a decision of the High Court upholding the conviction entered against him in the District Court. The applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal held that there was no breach of s 69 of the Land Transport Act 1998 and, as well, that on the facts of the case, the applicant was not unreasonably detained in breach of s 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The applicant sought leave to appeal on the basis that the Court of Appeal did not follow Birchler v Police and that the Court of Appeal’s conclusion as to the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention was wrong. The Court considered that the facts of the present case differed substantially from those of Birchler and that on the findings of the Court of Appeal on the lawfulness of the detention, there was no deviation from the process required under the statute. The issue whether the delays rendered the detention of the applicant unlawful was factual and did not raise a question of law of public or general importance. Furthermore, there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal. The Court found that the proposed grounds of appeal did not present a question of law of public or general importance. The Court noted that the facts of the case were very different from those in Birchler and that the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the law to the facts of the case. The Court held that the issue whether the delays rendered the detention of the applicant unlawful was a factual issue and did not raise a question of law of public or general importance. The Court also found that there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established