Legal Research
Cases
Chadderton v R

Chadderton v R

Case [2014] NZCA 528 31 October 2014

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA40/2014
[2014] NZCA 528

BETWEEN	ISSAC JOHN CHADDERTON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	3 September 2014
Court:	White, French and Miller JJ
Counsel:	A G Speed and D H P Schellenberg for Appellant P D Marshall and Y Moinfar for Respondent
Judgment:	31 October 2014 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AWe answer the question of law submitted for determination by this Court:
“Can reasonable compliance under s 64(2) of the Land Transport Act 1998 apply to breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?”
No.

BTo that extent the appeal is allowed but the conviction is confirmed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Introduction

Mr Chadderton was charged with driving with excess breath alcohol.
At a defended hearing in the Auckland District Court, he contended that on two separate occasions during the assessment procedure under the Land Transport Act 1998, the police arbitrarily detained him in breach of s 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the Bill of Rights Act).
Judge Dawson found that Mr Chadderton had not been arbitrarily detained and convicted him.[1] On appeal to the High Court Keane J dismissed the appeal,[2] but later granted Mr Chadderton leave to appeal to this Court on the following question of law:[3]
Can reasonable compliance under s 64(2) of the Land Transport Act apply to breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?
[1]Police v Chadderton DC Auckland CRI-2011-044-1152, 3 April 2013.
[2]Chadderton v New Zealand Police [2013] NZHC 2672.
[3]Chadderton v New Zealand Police [2013] NZHC 3433.
It is common ground that the answer to this question must be “no” and that insofar as Keane J relied on s 64(2) in determining whether there had been a Bill of Rights Act breach he made an error of law.
The main issue, therefore, is whether despite this error the conviction should stand.

Factual background

At approximately 5 am on 20 February 2011, a security guard at Massey University discovered Mr Chadderton slumped over the steering wheel of his car, which was parked on campus with the engine running. The guard took the keys from the ignition and called the police.
Two constables arrived at 5.50 am. One of them spoke to the guard while the other, Constable Fahy, administered a breath screening test, which Mr Chadderton failed. Constable Fahy advised Mr Chadderton of his rights and required him to accompany the officers to the North Shore Policing Centre for an evidential breath or blood test.
Constable Fahy then placed Mr Chadderton in the police vehicle. There was a delay of approximately five to 10 minutes while they waited for the other officer to finish taking a statement from the security guard. This is the first delay Mr Chadderton claims breached s 22 of the Bill of Rights Act.
On the way to the policing centre, they came across a van that…

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.

Continue reading Chadderton v R

Details

AGLC: Chadderton v R [2014] NZCA 528
Case: [2014] NZCA 528
Decision Date: 31 October 2014 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Issac John Chadderton appealed against his conviction for driving with excess breath alcohol. The appeal centred on whether his detention by the police, which led to the taking of an evidential breath test, breached his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the Bill of Rights Act). Chadderton argued that the police arbitrarily detained him in contravention of s 22 of the Bill of Rights Act. The Court of Appeal had to decide whether reasonable compliance under s 64(2) of the Land Transport Act 1998 (the Land Transport Act) could apply to breaches of the Bill of Rights Act. The Court concluded that it could not. This conclusion led to the allowance of the appeal but did not affect the conviction. The Court considered the evidence of two delays in transporting Chadderton to the police station. It found both delays reasonable and did not find the detention to be arbitrary. The evidence of the breath test was therefore properly admitted and the conviction confirmed.

The Court of Appeal, in addressing the legal question, noted that s 64(2) of the Land Transport Act only applied to departures from the procedural requirements outlined in Part 6 of the Act. Where a police officer fails to comply with a procedural step but has reasonably complied with the overall regime, s 64(2) operates to bar the substantive defence that would otherwise exist. However, where the issue concerns an alleged breach of the Bill of Rights Act, s 64(2) does not apply. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court had erred in taking s 64(2) into account in determining whether Chadderton had been arbitrarily detained. In considering the delays in transporting Chadderton to the police station, the Court found that the five to 10-minute delay while the security guard's statement was taken was reasonable, as was the up to 30-minute delay caused by the need to remove a broken-down van from the road. The Court concluded that the detention was not arbitrary and the conviction was confirmed.

Orders