Hintz v Police HC Christchurch CRI-2011-404-000207

[2011] NZHC 1990

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2011-404-000207

STUART MELVIN HINTZ

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         6 December 2011

Appearances: Appellant Appears In Person

K B Bell for Respondent

Judgment:      6 December 2011

JUDGMENT OF CHISHOLM J

[1]      On 25 May 2011 Mr Hintz was fined $80 and ordered to pay court costs of

$30.67 for using a cell phone while driving a motor vehicle.  It is apparent that there has been a major misunderstanding and the steps that I am about to take are not intended to indicate any criticism of the Justices of the Peace in Auckland who imposed the penalty.

[2]      After  receiving  notice  of  the  alleged  infringement  Mr  Hintz  advised  in writing that he wanted to plead not guilty and to have a hearing.  Later he advised that he wanted the matter to be transferred from Auckland to Christchurch, indicating that a plea of guilty would be entered.  Mr Hintz thought that he would be able to convey all that he wanted to say at the hearing in Christchurch and court staff

confirmed that he would have an opportunity to be heard in Christchurch.

HINTZ V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC CHCH CRI-2011-404-000207 6 December 2011

[3]      Unfortunately that did not prove to be the case.  The Justices of the Peace proceeded on the basis of what they believed was a plea of guilty.  The penalty was imposed without Mr Hintz having an opportunity to be heard.

[4]      Ms Bell has responsibly acknowledged that there are difficulties with this infringement notice and the penalty that has been imposed.  In all the circumstances I am satisfied that the appropriate course is to vacate the guilty plea and quash the penalty.  In other words, this is the end of the infringement notice.  No further steps are to be taken by the prosecuting authority.

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly & Co, P O Box 533, Christchurch,  [email protected]

Copy to Mr Hintz