G v Police HC Wanganui CRI 2009-483-24

[2009] NZHC 2074

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WANGANUI REGISTRY

CRI 2009-483-24

G

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing:         5 November 2009

Counsel:         Appellant in Person

J M Woodcock for Appellant

Judgment:      6 November 2009

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J (Appeal against Conviction)

[1]      Mr G   appeals his conviction for speeding.

[2]      It is alleged that Mr G   was driving near Mangaweka at a speed of

137 kph.  A police car was travelling in the opposite direction and recorded the speed on a radar device in the vehicle.  The police car then put on its lights, turned around and stopped Mr G  .  Mr G   was offered the opportunity to view the radar device in the officer’s car but declined to do so.

[3]      At the hearing, the police officer involved testified.  He described the events as above.  He produced a certificate of accuracy for his vehicle, and a certificate of

accuracy for the radar device that he used.

G V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WANG CRI 2009-483-24 6 November

2009

[4]      In addition, he produced a radar log book.  The log book records the checks that police officers do on a daily basis of the accuracy of the radar device.  This is not a document required by statute, but it appears that as a matter of practice, police have been  putting them  in  as  evidence  and  also  providing  them  to  the  alleged offender when disclosure is requested.

[5]      One of the entries that is made on these daily logs to record is the registration of the vehicle in which the radar device is situated.  On this occasion the registration number entered in the daily log did not match the registration number of the officer’s car.

[6]      At trial, the officer explained that the number that was entered in the daily log was in fact the vehicle being driven that day by his sergeant.  On the day in question the officer’s own device had been sent off for repairs, and so the sergeant gave him the device from the sergeant’s car.  The officer confirmed that the certificate that he had put in related to the device that he was using on the occasion.

The appeal and decision

[7]      Mr G   appeal really relates to this point.  He is aggrieved that the error was not corrected until oral testimony and that until that point in time there appeared to be a significant conflict between the written record and the officers’ deposition that had been disclosed.   It was an inconsistency that Mr G   believed to be sufficient to avoid conviction.   He objects to  the  change  that  was  made  at  the hearing.   He also queries whether the officer’s explanation of the inconsistency is adequate,  and criticises  the  lack  of  reasoning of  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  who convicted him.

[8]      I accept the point that the reasons of the Justices of the Peace are inadequate, but this appeal judgment will correct that deficit.  The essence of the case is that the police officer testified that a Porsche motor vehicle with a registration BJJ338 was driving in the opposite direction to the officer.   The officer put on his radar and clocked the Porsche at 137 kph.  The officer stopped the vehicle and Mr G   was the driver.

[9]      The officer  testified  that  he  was  in  a marked  patrol  vehicle,  registration number EDL699.   He said he was using a radar device with a serial number 7665 and with a serial number for the antenna of 12481.   He produced certificates of accuracy for all those devices.

[10]     That is really the end of the case in the absence of challenge.  The officer was asked about the error on the form on the radar log form.  He explained it.  He was not really challenged on that.  Nor was it put to him that the certificate that he had put in Court was not for the radar device he was using on the day.   Mr G   himself did not testify and the reality is that the case is proved essentially without opposition.

[11]     There is no impropriety in the manner in which the officer corrected the error in the daily log.  Noticing a mistake in a written record and providing an explanation for it is a common occurrence.  Often it occurs after a brief of evidence is prepared. It is the nature of the trial process.

[12]     For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.  The charge was properly proved to the appropriate standard.

Simon France J

Solicitors:

J M Woodcock, Armstrong Barton, PO Box 441, Wanganui 4540 email: Joanna[email protected]