Douds v Police - [2016] NZHC 3022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-443-33

[2016] NZHC 3022

BETWEEN
EUGENE DOUDS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 12 December 2016

Appearances:

J C Hannam for Appellant J E Bourke for Respondent

Judgment:

13 December 2016

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J

[1] Mr Douds was convicted1 on one charge of driving a vehicle in a dangerous manner and sentenced2 to pay a fine of $500, court costs of $130 and reparation of
$185 to one of the victims of the offending.

[2] Mr Douds appeals his conviction. The appeal against sentence foreshadowed in the notice of appeal was not pursued.

Facts

[3] On the evening of 22 February 2016 Martin Barker and Reece Beer were riding (one on a bicycle and one on a scooter) on Auroa Road in Taranaki. Martin heard a vehicle behind them. They both pulled off the road until the vehicle had passed. They continued down Auroa towards Eltham Road where they were to meet Reece’s mother. Near the intersection the boys pulled aside once more and stopped near a house. The

1 Police v Douds [2016] NZDC 21998.
2 Police v Douds [2016] NZDC 21973.

DOUDS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 3022 [13 December 2016]

vehicle, driven by Mr Douds, returned, moved across the centre of the road and off the road towards them. The vehicle hit one of the youths and drove over his bike.

District Court decision

[4] At trial Mr Douds’ account diverged from that of the two youths. He said he stopped short of them and had been careful not to cause any damage. He admitted speaking to them. Mr Douds maintained that he had crossed the road to speak to them but had not in any way struck them or gone over a bicycle. He said he picked up the bike from under the front of his car.

[5] Martin Barker, by contrast, said the car had gone over his bicycle which Mr Douds ripped from beneath the car when he got out. Reece Beer said much the same.

[6] The evidence of his mother, Lily Beer, was that the boys were very scared and frightened when she came across them on the side of the road and they said they had been hit by a car. The Judge put aside this evidence as hearsay.

[7] The Judge recorded that Mr Douds’ testimony was consistent with his statement to the police: he admitted to being present at the time and that the registration number of the car was the one both boys had recorded.

[8]The Judge assessed the evidence in this way:

[21] In your evidence effectively you said what you told Constable Crago, in your statement and you deny in any way being a dangerous driver. You said in your evidence that you picked up the bike from under the front of the Mitzi, but I am satisfied because I need to assess the evidence of the two boys and they have no…

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 Douds v Police

Details

AGLC: Douds v Police [2016] NZHC 3022
Case: [2016] NZHC 3022
Decision Date: 13 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Eugene Douds appeals his conviction for driving a vehicle in a dangerous manner, which resulted in a fine, court costs, and reparation to one of the victims. The primary issue before the court was whether the District Court judge erred in his assessment of the evidence, leading to a potential miscarriage of justice. Mr Douds' appeal hinges on two grounds: the judge gave insufficient weight to inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' accounts, and the judge's decision could not be in accordance with the facts presented, leading to an error.

The High Court considered the principles governing appeals against conviction, particularly under section 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The court noted that the judge's assessment of credibility must be reasoned, but the degree of elaboration required varies depending on the nature of the case. In this straightforward factual dispute, the High Court found that the judge's assessment was sufficient. The inconsistencies between the witnesses' accounts did not undermine the core facts of the incident, and the judge was entitled to conclude that any peripheral inconsistencies did not affect the key issue of whether the driving was dangerous. The High Court also dismissed the argument that the judge's rhetorical question about the youths' credibility placed an evidential onus on the defence, finding it was merely an aspect of the judge's credibility assessment.

Based on the above reasoning, the High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction.

Orders