Grant v Police - [2021] NZHC 2297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-409-000089

[2021] NZHC 2297

BETWEEN
CRAIG ANTHONY GRANT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 12 August 2021

Appearances:

J H M Eaton QC for the Appellant J E Lancaster for the Respondent

Judgment:

2 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Craig Anthony Grant, faces one charge of driving with excess blood alcohol,1 and one charge of careless use of a motor vehicle arising from a motor vehicle accident.2

[2] In a pre-trial hearing before Judge Phillips on 15 March 2021, Mr Grant challenged the admissibility of his alleged admissions that he was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time.

[3] In a reserved judgment dated 21 June 2021, Judge Phillips ruled the evidence was admissible.3

1      Land Transport Act 1998, s 56(2).
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 37(1).
3      Police v Grant [2021] NZDC 11909.

GRANT v POLICE [2021] NZHC 2297 [2 September 2021]

[4] Mr Grant appeals that decision but requires leave to do so. Resolution of the issues raised by the appeal are essential to the trial. There is no opposition from the Crown. Leave is accordingly granted.

Background

[5] The Police allege that, on 15 September 2019, Mr Grant drove a motor vehicle on St Albans Street when the proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, and that he drove the vehicle carelessly.

[6]Mr Grant has pleaded not guilty to both charges.

[7] On the evening of 15 September 2019, neighbours saw a vehicle that had crashed into a hedge at the corner of Mansfield Avenue and Browns Road, Christchurch. They observed two males walking away from the scene. Police were alerted. Police found a rates bill in the vehicle in Mr Grant’s name, recording his address as 2 Abberfield Lane.

[8] A Police dog handler tracked the occupants of the vehicle to Abberfield Lane, though not directly to the door of the property. Constables Henare and Hayman were directed to undertake a “door knock” at 2 Abberfield Lane.

[9] Constable Henare gave evidence at the pre-trial hearing. His evidence was that he and Constable Hayman went to the address where Constable Henare did the “door knock”. Constable Henare said the door to the property was opened by the appellant’s wife, Ms Grant. Constable Henare asked her if two males had returned to the property recently, she confirmed they had and said her partner had arrived home. Constable Henare asked if the officers could come inside as they wanted to speak to the men. Constable Henare’s evidence was that Ms Grant did not hesitate in allowing them to enter the home and he felt she was “on board with [the] police”.

[10] Constable Henare gave evidence that there were two men in the kitchen of the home who matched the description of the men seen leaving the vehicle, as per the information passed…

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 Grant v Police

Details

AGLC: Grant v Police [2021] NZHC 2297
Case: [2021] NZHC 2297
Decision Date: 2 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Craig Anthony Grant, appealed the admissibility of evidence obtained by the police following a motor vehicle accident. The police alleged that Mr Grant drove with excess blood alcohol and drove carelessly. The evidence in question was Mr Grant's admission that he was the driver of the vehicle. The District Court had found the evidence was admissible. Mr Grant sought leave to appeal that decision, which was granted. The appeal proceeded on the basis that the resolution of the issues was essential to the trial and the Crown did not oppose the grant of leave. Mr Grant argued the evidence should be excluded as it had been improperly obtained. The appellant's arguments focused on the fact the police had not complied with certain statutory requirements before making the entry and obtaining the admission. The Court considered the evidence of the police officer who made the entry and obtained the admission. The Court found the evidence was admissible on the basis that the impropriety was minor, there was no suggestion the impropriety was deliberate or made in bad faith, the evidence was of high quality and essential to the prosecution case, and the seriousness of the offence warranted the admission of the evidence.

Orders