Dobbyn v Police

[2013] NZHC 775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2013-463-000013 [2013] NZHC 775

BETWEEN  JORDAN LEE DOBBYN Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         16 April 2013

Counsel:         P M Hardie for Appellant

S T Simmers for Respondent

Judgment:      16 April 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1]      The key issue raised by this appeal is encapsulated in the following question:[1]

[1] Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(3).

Was there sufficient admissible evidence presented to the District Court to enable the District Court Judge to convict Mr Dobbyn of driving when his licence had been revoked?

Context

[2]      Mr Dobbyn is also apparently known as Jamie Carlson.  He is a young man who suffered a brain injury as a result of a car accident in December 2010.

[3]      The seriousness of Mr Dobbyn’s injuries led to the Land Transport Agency

(the Agency) revoking Mr Dobbyn’s driver’s licence on 5 October 2011.

[4]      A person whose licence is revoked must be issued with a notice of revocation by the Agency.[2]   In this case, the notice of revocation only named Jamie Carlson as the person whose licence was revoked.  The evidence before the District Court was that  Mr  Duffy,  a  process  server,  served  a  person  who  identified  himself  as Jamie Carlson with a notice of revocation in October 2011.

[2] Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule 1999, r 82.

[5]      On 25 May 2012 Mr Dobbyn was driving a vehicle in Taupo.  He failed to see two cyclists and crashed into them causing serious injury.

[6]      Mr Dobbyn pleaded guilty to two charges of careless driving causing injury but denied the charge of driving while his licence was revoked.  Judge Cooper heard the case in the Taupo District Court on 19 December 2012.  Judge Cooper decided that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Jamie Carlson and Mr Dobbyn are the same person and that Mr Dobbyn must have known his licence had been revoked.

Judge Cooper’s decision

[7]      Judge Cooper decided Jamie Carlson and Mr Dobbyn are one and the same person for the following six reasons:

(1)The constable who attended Mr Dobbyn’s accident in December 2010 instigated a review of his licence in August 2011 (for the purposes of deciding if Mr Dobbyn’s licence should be revoked).   That review was  conducted  in  relation  to  “Jamie/Carlson  aka Dobbyn/Jordan/Lee”.

(2)The licence in question was revoked because the holder had suffered head injuries in an accident that made him unfit to drive.

(3)When  interviewed  by  the  police  on  25  May  2012  Mr  Dobbyn explained  that  his  licence  had  been  revoked  for  medical  reasons

because of a head injury he had suffered in an accident.

(4)       The notice of revocation was served on a person who said he was

Jamie Carlson at the same address as Mr Dobbyn.

(5)       Mr Dobbyn and Mr Carlson share the same birth date. (6)     There was no evidence to the contrary.

Submissions in support of appeal

[8]      Mr Hardie, counsel for Mr Dobbyn submits that Judge Cooper erred when he placed reliance upon the evidence I have described in paragraph [7] at (1), (4) and (5).  The objection to the evidence of the instigation of the review into the licence held by “Jamie/Carlson aka Dobbyn/Jordan/Lee” was based on the concern that the constable who initiated the review learnt that Mr Dobbyn and Jamie Carlson may be one and the same person from hearsay statements made by persons who were at the scene of the December 2010 accident.

[9]      The   objection   to   Judge   Cooper   concluding   that   Mr   Dobbyn   and Jamie Carlson have the same date of birth and live at the same address is based on the fact that Judge Cooper obtained details of Mr Dobbyn’s date of birth and address from the information, which Mr Hardie submits was not evidence before the Court.

Analysis

[10]     Even if the evidence Mr Hardie objects to is put to one side, I am more than satisfied that there was sufficient evidence before Judge Cooper for him to conclude:

(1)       that Mr Dobbyn’s licence had been revoked;  and

(2)Mr  Dobbyn  knew  that  his  licence  had  been  revoked  for  medical reasons.

[11]     The following passage of Mr Dobbyn’s interview with the police on 25 May

2012 provided more than sufficient evidence for Judge Cooper to have concluded that Mr Dobbyn was guilty of the charge:

Q:       Now Can you describe to me your current licence status, what’s your

current status?

A:       Oh, had been suspended for, I have no idea of the amount of time.  I do know I had a 6 month stand down from driving for a head injury I received  through  my accident and  I’m currently just  waiting for ACC to give me the all clear to do something about it.   To start making some roads towards getting my licence back.  But before the accident, the main one I had, I was on a restricted.

Q:       So at this stage, at the stage of the crash, as far as you’re concerned, you didn’t actually hold a licence?

A.       No, no.

Q.        When you say you’re suspended, I haven’t had a chance to look on the system yet but, was the licence taken away because of medical reasons?

A.       Yeah, medical reasons.

Q.        And ACC were in the process of trying to give you the go ahead to go and apply for your licence?

A.       Yes.

Q.       But they haven’t yet?

A.       Nope.

[12]     The approach taken by Judge Cooper when he analysed the evidence was thorough and entitled his Honour to reach the obvious conclusion that Mr Dobbyn and Jamie Carlson were the same person.

[13]     Mr Dobbyn’s acknowledgement to the interviewing police officer entitled Judge Cooper to infer Mr Dobbyn was referring to his licence having been revoked (not suspended) and that he could only have known this if he had in fact been served with a notice of revocation.

Conclusion

[14]     For these reasons I believe the appeal must be dismissed.

D B Collins J

Solicitors:

Jones Howden, Matamata for Appellant

Crown Solicitor, Rotorua for Respondent