Hartley v Police - [2019] NZHC 385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI 2018-454-11

[2019] NZHC 385

BETWEEN
CORY HARTLEY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 7 March 2019

Counsel:

Appellant in Person

M J Blaschke for Respondent

Judgment:

8 March 2019

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1] Mr Hartley was convicted of careless driving causing injury.1 The van he was driving entered onto gravel that was on the left-hand side of the road on which he was driving. This caused Mr Hartley to lose control with the consequence the van turned 90 degrees and went straight across the road. A car coming in the other direction hit Mr Hartley’s van in the side. The driver and her passenger were injured.

[2] The prosecution called several witnesses who all attested to the scenario just described. Mr Hartley did not dispute the essence of the case other than as regards why his van got into the gravel. He said when he came around a corner he encountered a stalled line of cars and steered to the left of the road to avoid hitting the back of the rearmost one. None of the prosecution witnesses agreed that the road in front of

1 Hartley v Police [2018] NZDC 17735. An appeal against sentence was not pursued and is dismissed.

HARTLEY v POLICE [2019] NZHC 385 [8 March 2019]

Mr Hartley was blocked in this way. All the witnesses could see Mr Hartley’s van as it approached them from the opposite direction.

[3] The Judge did not resolve this issue, observing that Mr Hartley’s own version of events would constitute careless driving. Convictions were entered.

[4] The appeal is advanced primarily as a complaint about the fairness of the trial. It is submitted that the Judge should have recused himself, and that Mr Hartley, who acted for himself, was not able to present the case he wished. The Judge kept limiting his questioning and threatening him with “the cells”.

[5] Mr Hartley asked the Judge to recuse himself because the Judge had presided over a Family Court matter involving his family. The Judge said he had no recollection of it and it did not afford a basis for recusal. Mr Hartley renews the point on appeal. He advises that his was merely a support role for his mother. I agree that affords no basis for the Judge to recuse himself.

[6] Concerning interruptions to his case, the Notes of Evidence do not on their face disclose undue interference. Mr Hartley presented his case in a way that is puzzling, at least to legally trained eyes. At the outset, sensibly, he accepted he had lost control in the gravel, the car had crossed the road and the people were injured. This meant the sole issue was how it was that Mr Hartley came to be in the gravel, and whether that represented careless driving on his part.

[7] Although this was a narrow issue, Mr Hartley’s…

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: [2019] NZHC 385
Decision Date: 8 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hartley v Police was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Palmerston North Registry. Cory Hartley, the appellant, appealed against his conviction of careless driving causing injury. The case involved Hartley losing control of his van, which entered gravel on the left side of the road, resulting in a collision with another vehicle and injuries to the occupants. The prosecution witnesses testified to this sequence of events, but Hartley disputed the circumstances leading to his van entering the gravel, claiming he had attempted to avoid a stalled line of cars.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial was conducted fairly, whether the Judge should have recused himself, and whether the conviction was supported by evidence. Hartley argued that the Judge should have recused himself due to a prior Family Court matter involving Hartley's family, and that he was unfairly restricted in presenting his case. He also claimed that the Judge's interruptions and threats of "the cells" affected the fairness of the trial. Additionally, Hartley argued that the conviction was not supported by evidence because he was not confronted by an obstruction as he claimed.

The court found that the hearing was fair, with Hartley able to present his case and question witnesses. The court rejected the argument for recusal, as the prior Family Court matter did not provide a basis for the Judge to recuse himself. The court also determined that Hartley's questioning of witnesses focused on irrelevant points that did not assist in resolving the core issue. The court concluded that it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the obstruction Hartley believed he encountered did not exist, and that the only explanation for his van entering the gravel was his carelessness. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders