Drummond v Police - [2014] NZHC 1851

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-409-000050 [2014] NZHC 1851

DONALD STUART DRUMMOND

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 7 August 2014

Appearances:

Appellant in person
S J Jamieson for Respondent

Judgment:

7 August 2014

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] On 22 November 2013, the appellant, Mr Dummond, was stopped by police while driving a friend, Ms Ngaire Guest, to her home.

[2] It transpired that Mr Drummond had, about a month before, been suspended from driving for accumulating excess demerit points and should not have been driving at the time. He was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, driving while suspended.

[3] When Mr Drummond appeared for sentencing he applied under s 81 of the Land Transport Act 1998 for relief from the mandatory six month disqualification that would apply. To support his approach he provided affidavit evidence to the Court about the circumstances in which he came to be driving his friend Ms Guest on that day. Ms Guest also provided an affidavit which simply confirmed his
account of events. The District Court Judge was somewhat critical of the lack of

DRUMMOND v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 1851 [7 August 2014]

direct affidavit evidence from Ms Guest about her reasons for needing a driver to take her home on that day.

[4] In the end, Judge Garland decided that, although Mr Drummond was genuinely helping his friend out, his explanation for why he was driving did not amount to “special reasons” under s 81 to avoid a six month disqualification. He sentenced Mr Drummond to a fine of $300 and Court costs, plus a six month period of disqualification.

The appeal

[5] Mr Drummond appeals the mandatory disqualification period of six months imposed by Judge Garland. The grounds of appeal essentially say that he has been let down by counsel, who should have had the matter adjourned to allow him to file a more fulsome affidavit from his friend, Ms Guest.

[6] For completeness, I note that Mr Drummond’s appeal was filed late, although the Crown takes no issue with this. Furthermore, the technical requirements of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 have not been followed when an appeal involves challenges to the conduct of a trial lawyer or the introduction of fresh evidence. However, nothing really turns on this, because, as I explain below, the affidavit evidence filed by Ms Guest does no more than put on a more firm footing the evidence which the Judge had regard to when he sentenced Mr Drummond.

The supporting affidavit

[7] Mr Drummond has now filed an affidavit from Ms Guest. It simply spells out in more detail the explanation that was provided by way of Mr Drummond’s affidavit at the District Court hearing.

[8] In summary, Ms Guest says that on the day of the offence, she had been visiting her daughter in the suburb of Avonside. Her daughter’s partner, who drove her there, was then arrested for outstanding fines and taken to the police station. At…

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 Drummond v Police

Details

AGLC: Drummond v Police [2014] NZHC 1851
Case: [2014] NZHC 1851
Decision Date: 7 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Drummond v Police, the High Court was asked to consider whether the appellant, Mr Drummond, could be granted relief from a six-month driving disqualification under s 81 of the Land Transport Act 1998. Mr Drummond had been driving while his license was suspended, and the District Court had imposed the mandatory six-month disqualification. At the sentencing hearing, Mr Drummond argued that he had been driving his friend, Ms Guest, to her home because she was in need of assistance due to her fused ankle and the harassment she faced while walking. The District Court, however, was not convinced that these circumstances constituted "special reasons" for relief under the statute.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the District Court erred in its assessment of whether the circumstances of Mr Drummond's driving constituted "special reasons" under s 81 of the Land Transport Act. The Court was required to determine if Mr Drummond's actions were justified under the statute, which allows for the waiver of a mandatory disqualification period if "special reasons" are present. The Court had to consider the factual findings of the District Court and the legal principles guiding the interpretation of "special reasons."

The Court found that while Mr Drummond genuinely intended to help his friend, the circumstances did not justify driving while suspended. The Court emphasized that "special reasons" are of a sufficiently compelling nature to justify departing from the usual consequence for disobeying a legal prohibition on driving. After reviewing all the evidence, including Ms Guest's affidavit, the Court concluded that the reasons provided did not meet the threshold for "special reasons." Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the six-month disqualification remained in place. The Court found that Mr Drummond drove more for Ms Guest's convenience rather than due to any urgent necessity, and thus, the circumstances did not warrant relief from the statutory disqualification.

Orders