Dawson v Police - [2010] NZCA 303

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA215/2010
[2010] NZCA 303
BETWEENNIGEL PAUL DAWSON

Applicant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:6 July 2010

Court:Ellen France, Wild and Stevens JJ
Counsel:Applicant in person

M Inwood for Respondent

Judgment:19 July 2010 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to apply for special leave is declined.

B            The application for special leave is dismissed.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Ellen France J)
Introduction
[1]        On 26 June 2007 a police officer observed Nigel Dawson driving through an intersection in downtown Wellington on an amber light. As a result he was charged and summarily convicted after a hearing before Justices of the Peace on one charge of failing to stop at a yellow traffic signal.[1] He was fined $50 and ordered to pay court costs of $30. Mr Dawson unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court against his conviction.[2] Mr Dawson subsequently sought leave from the High Court to appeal to this Court. In a decision delivered on 28 April 2009, MacKenzie J declined to grant leave.[3]
[1]Regulation 3(1) of the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999 and cl 3.2(4)(a) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.
[2]      Dawson v Police HC Wellington CRI-2008-485-139, 25 February 2009.
[3]      Dawson v Police HC Wellington CRI-2008-485-139, 28 April 2009.
[2]        Mr Dawson now seeks special leave to appeal under s 144(3) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.[4]
Basis of proposed appeal
[4]The provisions of the Summary Proceedings Act apply here by virtue of s 21(8)(d)(i) of that Act.
[3]        Mr Dawson wants to argue, first, that what he did was not unlawful. He says his actions were lawful as he was able to drive safely through the intersection to clear it whilst the light was still amber. Secondly, Mr Dawson seeks to appeal on the basis that the police officer made a procedural error when giving evidence before the Justices of the Peace.
Discussion
[4]        Special leave under s 144(3) can only be granted if there is a question of law that is of general or public importance or which for some other reason ought to be submitted to this Court. The Court has emphasised the importance of these requirements and the reasons for them.[5]
[5]      R v Slater [1997] 1 NZLR 211 (CA).
[5]        Taking first Mr Dawson’s proposed argument about the lawfulness of his actions, cl 3.2(4) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 provides as follows:
While a steady yellow signal in the form of a disc is displayed,—
(a)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] Joseph Williams J in dismissing Mr Dawson’s appeal set out the basis of the conviction. His Honour noted that the Crown relied on the evidence of Sergeant Moodie. He was…

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 Dawson v Police

Details

AGLC: Dawson v Police [2010] NZCA 303
Case: [2010] NZCA 303
Decision Date: 19 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nigel Dawson was convicted of failing to stop at a yellow traffic signal and subsequently sought leave to appeal against that conviction. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court and Dawson now seeks special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under s 144(3) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The Court considered two issues: whether Dawson's actions were lawful and whether there was a procedural error in the evidence given by Sergeant Moodie. The Court found that Dawson's argument that he was able to drive safely through the intersection was a question of fact, not law, and that the procedural error made by Sergeant Moodie did not give rise to a question of law. The Court also noted that Dawson's application for special leave was filed more than 10 months out of time, and declined to grant an extension of time. The application for special leave was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand recently dismissed an application for special leave brought by Nigel Dawson, who was convicted of failing to stop at a yellow traffic signal. Dawson's appeal against his conviction was dismissed by the High Court and he now sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court considered two issues: whether Dawson's actions were lawful and whether there was a procedural error in the evidence given by Sergeant Moodie. The Court found that Dawson's argument that he was able to drive safely through the intersection was a question of fact, not law, and that the procedural error made by Sergeant Moodie did not give rise to a question of law. The Court also noted that Dawson's application for special leave was filed more than 10 months out of time, and declined to grant an extension of time. The application for special leave was dismissed.

Orders