Chamberlain v New Zealand Police HC Wang CRI 2008-483-000005

[2008] NZHC 1234

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WANGANUI REGISTRY

CRI 2008-483-000005

BETWEEN  C

Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         6 August 1008

Counsel:         No appearance for Appellant

H C Mallalieu for Respondent

Judgment:      6 August 2008

Reasons:        12 August 2008

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF WILD J

[1]      When this appeal was called in Court on 6 August the appellant did not appear.  I then dismissed the appeal, primarily for non-prosecution, but also because the appeal lacked any merit.  I said these reasons would follow.

[2]      On 27 October 2007 the appellant was checked by a police officer travelling in his Mazda car on State Highway 3 near Brightwell Road at Bulls at 115 kph.  The speed restriction was the open road limit of 100 kph.

[3]      Upon request the appellant produced his drivers licence, but declined the officer’s offer to view his speed locked onto the Stalker radar device.

[4]      At the hearing before Justices of the Peace in the District Court at Marton on

19 February, the appellant cross-examined the officer in this way:

C V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WANG CRI 2008-483-000005  6 August 2008

Q.        Did I ask for a photo um, or anything like that, a video of my – of the speed at the time?

A.        Ah, you may well have done.  I haven’t noted the fact.

Q.        Yeah will I did, yeah sorry and you said that (inaudible) at the back and I say that I didn’t think I was going that particular speed.  That’s all I've got to say.

[5]      The appellant then gave evidence.  He began recounting a complaint he had made to the Police about a rape, and was directed by the Justices to restrict his evidence to the case they were dealing with.  He then acknowledged that he had been pulled over by the officer and had been offered the opportunity to look in the patrol car at the speed locked onto the radar device.  He then stated:

…  I didn’t  think  I  had  anything  to  worry  about  because  there  was  no evidence, just, you know, his say and a machine say, you know.  Whereas the New Zealand Police have stated, which they haven’t supplied me any information with in my (inaudible) that um, I needed evidence myself, you know, to make a complaint, an actual complaint. That’s it Your Honour.

[6]      Cross-examining,  the  prosecuting  sergeant  asked  the  appellant  what  his defence was.  This was the appellant’s answer:

…  Well it’s like I state, and um I stated when I did send the um, when I wrote up the letter when I got home to the Police that ah, it could have been a plane, a truck, anything, you know, there was no evidence apart from a machine.  Yeah, that’s –

[7]      As he set them out in his notice of appeal, the appellant’s grounds were these:

When I made a complaint of being raped by another man and that there was a video of it, and gave them the name of a person knows of it and has seen it. I was told unless I have a video of it they wouldn’t be looking at  my complaint. They even sent me a letter about 2 years ago stating that.

And so when a Policeman stands up and days his radar detector picked me up speeding who’s to say it was me.  Where’s the video of me (breaking the law).  And I am still waiting for all the information that the NZ Police have on me.

[8]      The essence of the appellant’s evidence at the hearing, and of those grounds of appeal, seems to be a perception by the appellant that the Police had no evidence against him, in particular because they had no video of his car travelling at 115 kph. I am unsure why the defendant thinks that a video of a car exceeding the legal speed limit would provide any reliable evidence of the speed of the car.  But I would not.

That  evidence  was  provided  at  the  hearing  by  the  officer,  who  produced  the following exhibits:

•Exhibit  1.     A  certificate  of  his  proficiency  to  operate  the  speed enforcement equipment.

•Exhibit 2.   A current certificate of accuracy of the odometer in his patrol car (does not seem relevant).

•Exhibit 3.  A current certificate of accuracy of the Stalker DSR radar device in his patrol car.

•Exhibit 4.  A copy of his radar log book recording a daily accuracy test of the Stalker unit for 27 October 2007.

•Exhibit  5.     A  copy  of  the  infringement  notice  he  issued  to  the appellant.

[9]      Those exhibits, plus the  officer’s evidence that he checked  the  appellant travelling at 115 kph, proved the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.  The defence that there was no videotaped evidence of the appellant travelling at  the  excessive  speed  recorded  on  the  radar  device,  makes  no  impact  on  that evidence because it is simply a misguided irrelevancy.

[10]     It is for those reasons that I dismissed the appeal on 6 August.

[11]     The consequence is that the Justices’ finding that the charge was proved stands, as does the fine and Court costs they imposed.

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Wanganui for the Respondent