H v Police HC Christchurch CRI 2007-409-166

[2007] NZHC 934

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2007-409-000166

H

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         20 September 2007

Counsel:        Appellant In Person

D Jackson for Respondent

Judgment:      20 September 2007

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

[1]      This is a somewhat unusual appeal.  Mr H   who represented himself both in the District Court and in this Court, seeks an increase to an award of costs which was made in his favour following the dismissal of a charge that he drove in excess of a special speed limit.

[2]      The infringement notice related to an alleged offence of driving on Deans Avenue at in excess of 30 kilometres per hour at a time when road works were being performed.  This was on 3 October 2006.  Mr H   duly gave notice that he wished to defend the infringement notice.  He appeared in the District Court on 28 February

before Justices of the Peace.  Only at that point did the informant advise the Court

H V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC CHCH CRI 2007-409-000166  20 September 2007

that it would not offer evidence and accordingly the infringement notice was dismissed.

[3]      Mr H   made application for costs.  The Justices adjourned that aspect and invited the filing of written submissions.  Such was done on both sides.  In the end result, although Mr H   had sought a total of $435, he was awarded a sum of $110 being $90 for mileage (the expense of his travel from Akaroa and return) and $20 to cover  incidental  expenses,  photocopying  and  the  like.     However,  the  Justices accepted that they did not have jurisdiction to award the greater part of the amount claimed which was the cost of preparation and loss of earnings for the time spent in coming to court.   Undeterred, Mr H   has filed the present appeal by which he seeks to revisit the balance of the amounts that he claimed, but was not awarded.

[4]      Mr Jackson, in a submission filed on behalf of the informant, has correctly set out the relevant provisions of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act  and the relevant portions from the 1987 regulations.   I accept his submission that regardless of the merits it is not competent to award a lay litigant costs other than for actual out-of- pocket expenses.  This is confirmed by Part 3C of the regulations which provides the expenses for which costs may be claimed, including travelling expenses and all other disbursements reasonably and properly incurred.  The latter extends to the costs of inquiries whether scientific or other forms of investigation or tests.

[5]      Against that background I turn briefly to Mr H  ’s concerns.  He brings the appeal as a matter of principle.  He does not consider that he committed an offence of  exceeding  30  kilometres  per  hour  in  the  particular  zone.    Moreover,  he  is perturbed that when he applied for disclosure from the informant, their performance was to his mind tardy to say the least.  To add insult to injury he was not advised of the intention not to continue with the prosecution until he attended court on the day of the fixture, 28 February.

[6]      I sympathise with Mr H   about these matters.  He does seem to have had a raw deal.  It would have taken no more than a phone call to his address in Akaroa prior to 28 February to avoid quite a bit of inconvenience and expense.  I, of course, have not heard argument about the various complaints referable to the offence itself

or the issue of pre-trial disclosure.  Nonetheless Mr H  ’s submissions seem to be both well-motivated and responsible.

[7]      What then can be done?  In my view the Justices got it right save perhaps in one respect.  Mr H   claimed $100 for legal fees incurred in taking advice from his solicitor which he said was done when he encountered difficulty with reference to disclosure of the informant’s hand.  I have questioned him about this aspect this morning.  He explained that he is a director of companies and for that reason visits his solicitor quite frequently.  He cannot present a separate account for services with reference to the prosecution, but he assures me that there has been a nominal charge made, although one which is not necessarily identifiable from a bill of costs.

[8]      I see no reason to doubt Mr H   as to this.   He is obviously a person of integrity.   I therefore consider that the Justices were in a position to  award the claimed $100 for legal costs and this impresses me as being a disbursement of a kind which is recognised within Part 3C of the Regulations.

[9]      To that extent I therefore allow the appeal and increase the costs award by

$100.  I also allow a contribution towards Mr H  ’s travel costs in coming to court in support of the appeal.  On that account I allow him the sum of $50 because I am aware that his presence today is not solely for this case, but on account of another commitment which he has in the city.  That figure is allowed with reference to the

appeal.

Solicitors:

Appellant – Mr S W H  , 384 Decanter Bay, AKAROA.

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch for Respondent