Hartley v Police - [2020] NZCA 334

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA107/2019
[2020] NZCA 334

BETWEEN	CORY HARTLEY Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	French, Woolford and Dunningham JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person J Mara for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	7 August 2020 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Dunningham J)

The applicant, Mr Hartley, was convicted in the District Court at Palmerston North of two charges of careless driving causing injury.[1] He was sentenced to 80 hours’ community work and six months’ disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence.
[1]Police v Hartley [2018] NZDC 17735.
He appealed both his conviction and sentence to the High Court, but his appeal was dismissed.[2] He now seeks leave from this Court to bring a second appeal against conviction and sentence.

Background

The offending

[2]Hartley v Police [2019] NZHC 385.

In March 2017, Mr Hartley lost control of his vehicle while coming around a corner. His van crossed the centre line and struck an oncoming vehicle. The occupants of the other vehicle both sustained moderate injuries.

The District Court hearing

Mr Hartley represented himself at a judge-alone trial in August 2018. The key issue in that hearing was whether Mr Hartley was driving carelessly. His defence was that he came around a corner to find a line of stopped cars in front of him, requiring him to swerve to the left to avoid a collision with them. He said he braked prior to swerving on to the gravel shoulder, and the loose gravel caused his vehicle to take off to the right, at which point he was no longer in control of the vehicle and was therefore not at fault. His mother, who was a passenger in his vehicle, confirmed his account.
However, six other witnesses to the accident did not see any vehicles stopped in front of Mr Hartley.[3] The Judge, while noting his defence, said that Mr Hartley “must maintain control of [his] car at all times” and, on the basis of his own evidence, he was careless.[4] He was therefore found guilty on the charges. After a brief discussion about Mr Hartley’s personal circumstances the Judge imposed a sentence of 80 hours’ community work rather than a fine, along with the mandatory six month period of disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s license.

The High Court appeal

[3]Being the two injured occupants of the van that Mr Hartley struck and four other drivers who were witnesses to the accident.

[4] Police v Hartley, above n 1, at [11].

Mr Hartley appealed to the High Court on the grounds that the District Court trial was unfair due to his inability to cross-examine witnesses, his lack of opportunity to defend himself and because of factual discrepancies he alleged were in the prosecution evidence.
Simon France J considered and dismissed each ground. He…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hartley v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NZCA 334
Decision Date: 7 August 2020 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cory Hartley, an applicant, sought leave to bring a second appeal against both his conviction and sentence for careless driving causing injury, as decided by the District Court and upheld by the High Court. The case was heard by French, Woolford, and Dunningham JJ. The central issue before the Court was whether Mr Hartley's proposed grounds for appeal warranted the granting of leave for a second appeal, as per sections 237 and 253 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The proposed grounds focused on factual issues that had already been determined by the lower courts, including the alleged inaccuracy of photographs, the direction of travel of the highway, and the validity of witness testimonies.

The Court considered whether Mr Hartley's proposed appeal involved a matter of general or public importance or if a miscarriage of justice might occur unless the appeal was heard. The Court noted that the threshold for granting leave to bring a second appeal was high and that such leave was typically not granted for fact-specific matters that had already been addressed by lower courts. The Court concluded that Mr Hartley's proposed grounds for appeal did not meet the criteria for leave, as they were largely fact-specific and had already been rejected by the High Court. The Court further found that no miscarriage of justice would result from denying leave, as the factual findings relevant to the conviction had already been upheld.

In conclusion, the Court declined the application for leave to bring a second appeal, finding that the proposed grounds did not warrant such leave under the statutory criteria. The Court emphasised the high threshold for leave to bring a second appeal and the limited circumstances in which such leave would be granted. The Court's decision upheld the earlier determinations of the District Court and the High Court, and no further appeal was permitted.

Orders