Chadderton v New Zealand Police
[2015] NZSC 30
•31 March 2015
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND |
| SC 129/2014 [2015] NZSC 30 |
| BETWEEN | ISSAC JOHN CHADDERTON |
| AND | NEW ZEALAND POLICE |
| Court: | William Young, Arnold and O'Regan JJ |
Counsel: | A G Speed and D H P Schellenberg for Applicant |
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
3
0