Chadderton v Police - [2013] NZHC 2672

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-157 [2013] NZHC 2672

BETWEEN ISSAC JOHN CHADDERTON Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 8 October 2013

Appearances:

D H P Schellenberg for Appellant
L M Mills for Respondent

Judgment:

14 October 2013

JUDGMENT OF KEANE J

This judgment was delivered by on 14 October 2013 at 4.30pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

CHADDERTON v POLICE [2013] NZHC 2672 [14 October 2013]

[1] On 3 April 2013 Issac Chadderton was convicted in the District Court, Auckland of driving on 20 February 2011 with an excess breath alcohol proportion. It was 654 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. On 22 May 2013 he was fined
$500 and disqualified for six months.

[2] On this appeal against his conviction Mr Chadderton contends that, while he was subject to the statutory assessment procedure, he was arbitrarily detained twice. That first happened, he contends, when he was detained for five – ten minutes immediately after he failed the breath screening test and had been required to accompany the administering officer to the North Shore Policing Centre for further testing. A more senior officer was then taking a statement from a proposed witness. Then, he contends, he was arbitrarily detained for up to 30 minutes on the way to the policing centre, while the two officers responded to a road safety issue.

[3] In his decision under appeal Judge Dawson considered only the second of those periods. He did not consider the first and appears not to have understood that it was in issue. The only question he had to decide, he said, was whether Mr Chadderton was arbitrarily detained on the way to the policing centre. He held that he was not. In that certainly, Mr Chadderton contends, the Judge erred in law.

[4] In resolving this appeal I will consider whether, as Mr Chadderton contends, he was unlawfully detained in both instances. I have also to consider another issue that the Judge did not have to resolve: whether, even if Mr Chadderton was detained unlawfully, the evidential breath test result remained admissible under s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.

Evidence at hearing

[5] At 5 am on 3 April 2013, according to the evidence, a security guard at Massey University, Albany, responded to a sounding alarm. As he did so he noticed a car parked within the campus precinct that had not been there a quarter of an hour before. After responding to the alarm he returned to that car.

[6] The guard found that the car’s engine was still running, that the headlights were on and that the driver, Mr Chadderton, secured by a seat belt, was slumped over

the steering wheel. He saw empty beer bottles in the car and one between Mr Chadderton’s legs. He smelt alcohol on Mr Chadderton’s breath. He considered Mr Chadderton still obviously intoxicated.

[7] The guard engaged the handbrake and took…

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 Chadderton 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: [2013] NZHC 2672
Decision Date: 14 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Issac John Chadderton appealed his conviction for driving with an excess breath alcohol proportion, arguing that he was unlawfully detained on two occasions. The first instance occurred when he was detained for five to ten minutes immediately after failing a breath screening test and being required to accompany the administering officer to the North Shore Policing Centre. The second instance was when he was detained for up to 30 minutes on the way to the policing centre due to a road safety issue. The legal issues before the court were whether the detentions were arbitrary and whether the detentions affected the admissibility of the evidential breath test result under the Evidence Act 2006. The court found that the detentions were not arbitrary, as the officers acted in good faith and the detentions did not prejudice the defendant's case. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the detentions did not render the breath test result inadmissible.
The court concluded that the delay at Massey Campus was not unreasonable or inconsistent with the officers' powers under s 69(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998. The officers needed to ensure that Chadderton had driven while intoxicated and needed to hear the security guard's statement. The court found that the delay was brief and did not prejudice Chadderton's case. The court also found that the officers were entitled to stop and deal with the road safety issue immediately. However, the court found that the officers should have called for help to free themselves to take Chadderton to the policing centre. The court found that the officers were acting in good faith and that the delay did not prejudice Chadderton's case. The court held that the detentions did not render the breath test result inadmissible under the Evidence Act 2006.

Orders