D v Police HC Wellington CRI-2008-485-139

[2009] NZHC 211

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2008-485-139

D

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         24 February 2009

Counsel:         Appellant in Person

M W Snape for the Crown

Judgment:      25 February 2009

JUDGMENT OF JOSEPH WILLIAMS J

[1]      The appellant was convicted on one charge of failing to stop at a yellow traffic signal on the corner of Manner Street and Willis Street.  He was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and court costs of $30.  He argues that he was entitled to enter the intersection on a yellow light provided he could do so safely.

[2]      The Crown supports the decision of the Justices of the Peace in the District Court.  They relied, as does the Crown, on the evidence of Sergeant Moodie who was observing the intersection at the time.   The sergeant’s evidence was that the

appellant’s vehicle had accelerated just as the light was turning yellow when, in his

D V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI-2008-485-139 25 February 2009

view, it was safe to stop.  There were in his view no following vehicles to make a braking manoeuvre risky.

[3]      At the hearing the appellant said that the light was green and that he had accelerated either slightly before or at the same time as the light turning yellow, and that he was left with no safe choice but to continue into the intersection.

[4]      Whether  the  appellant  accelerated  once  the  light  had  turned  yellow  or whether he was completely committed to entering the intersection before the light change  was  a  matter  carefully  considered  by  the  Justices  of  the  Peace.    They appeared  clearly to  prefer  Sergeant  Moodie’s  evidence  to  that  of  the  appellant. While I accept that these are often split-second decisions, and while I acknowledge that many of us have made choices in those circumstances that have taken us into intersections when they probably should not have, nonetheless the best judges of the facts of this case have to be those who heard the evidence at first instance, rather than me at this distance.

[5]      The Justices of the Peace were satisfied that the appellant accelerated when he could safely have stopped and therefore he breached regulation 3.2(4)(a) of the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999.  It provides:

While a steady yellow signal in the form of a disc is displayed, a driver facing the signal must not enter the controlled area while the signal is displayed unless the driver’s vehicle is, when the signal first appears, so close to the controlled area that it cannot safely be stopped before entering the area.

[6]      I am not at this remove in a position to gainsay what the Justices of the Peace concluded.  They preferred Sergeant Moodie’s evidence and I am content to leave the matter there.  Apart from anything else, it seems to me in matters of intersection management, it is safest to err on the side of caution rather than encourage an interpretation of the law which encourages people to accelerate into intersections in preference to more cautious approaches.   That it seems to me, is the intent of the regulation.  This is a busy intersection with many pedestrians, and I consider it best to support the conclusion reached at first instance in this case.

[7]      I would therefore dismiss the appeal.

“Joseph Williams J”

Solicitors:

N D  , 15-17 Merton Street, Trentham

Luke, Cunningham & Clere, Wellington