Hall v Police - [2012] NZHC 2641

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WANGANUI REGISTRY

CRI 2012-483-8 [2012] NZHC 2641

IVAN JUNIOR HALL
Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 9 October 2012 (Heard at Wellington)

Counsel: D Goodlet for Appellant
J M Woodcock for Respondent

Judgment: 11 October 2012

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1] Mr Hall appeals his conviction for dishonestly using a vehicle for his own purposes. He also appeals his sentence of two years, ten months’ imprisonment on a number of offences including his seventh and eighth driving while disqualified, and
his fifth and sixth drink driving offence.[1]
[1] New Zealand Police v Hall DC Wanganui CRI 2011-083-002389, 13 March 2012, Judge Cameron; New Zealand Police v Hall DC Wanganui CRI 2011-083-002389,
25 June 2012, Judge Ross.

IVAN JUNIOR HALL V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WANG CRI 2012-483-8 [11 October 2012]

Facts – conviction

[2] Wanganui police were alerted to look for a ute which had allegedly been involved in a road rage incident. It was located, and the police signalled for it to pull over. The driver instead sped off and a chase ensued. Eventually police abandoned the pursuit, and switched to searching for the vehicle.

[3] The vehicle was located up a driveway on a rural property on the road where it had last been seen. A woman was in the passenger seat. By the side of the driver’s door, on the ground, were a pile of clothes. Tracker dogs were used, and Mr Hall was located in trees 250 metres away. He was wearing only his underpants and was lying face down, seemingly hiding.

[4] At trial the police led evidence the ute had been stolen six months earlier. Mr Hall was initially charged with stealing it but shortly before the trial it was amended to dishonestly using it. When stolen the ute was red. When located it was a poorly painted white with different number plates. However, the warrant of fitness referred to the previous correct number plate.

Conviction appeal

[5] At trial Mr Hall testified that he had been at a party. He got into the vehicle to sleep, and woke up at the place where the vehicle was located. He awoke at that stage because the woman in the vehicle woke him. They engaged in sex, hence his state of undress. Then he saw vehicle lights coming towards where they were, so ran off fearing it was his partner arriving.

[6] Mr Hall said that a person called Sam had driven the vehicle from the party to where it was found. He thought it was Sam’s vehicle. It can be recorded that the tracker dog had searched around the vehicle but found no other scent. The Judge accepted the evidence that had Sam or anyone else been in the vehicle and left, the dog would have detected their scent.

[7] The Judge focussed on the issue of whether Mr Hall was the driver. He decided it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was, and 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 Hall v Police

Details

AGLC: Hall v Police [2012] NZHC 2641
Case: [2012] NZHC 2641
Decision Date: 11 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ivan Junior Hall, appeals against his conviction and sentence for multiple driving-related offences, including dishonest use of a vehicle. The respondent, New Zealand Police, sought to uphold the conviction and sentence handed down by the District Court. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered its judgment on the 11th of October 2012. The court was required to decide whether the conviction was supported by the evidence, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that the evidence supported the conviction of dishonestly using a vehicle, as there was no doubt that Mr Hall knew he had no right to use the vehicle and was just using it for his own purposes. The court also found that the sentence, while stern, was appropriate given Mr Hall's history of similar offending and the need to protect the public.
The court dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence. The court found that the Judge had correctly assessed the credibility of Mr Hall's evidence and that the evidence supported the conviction. The court also found that the sentence, while stern, was within the available range and was justified by the need to protect the public and deter Mr Hall from further offending. The court noted that Mr Hall had a history of similar offending and had recently served jail time for similar offences. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the Judge had properly considered the relevant factors in imposing the sentence.

Orders