Hopper v Police HC Auckland CRI-2011-404-280

[2011] NZHC 1280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2011-404-280

BETWEEN  JEFFREY LLOYD HOPPER Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         17 October 2011

Counsel:         Appellant in person

R E Savage for Respondent

Judgment:      17 October 2011

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

SOLICITORS

Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent

(copy to Appellant in person)

HOPPER V POLICE HC AK CRI-2011-404-280 17 October 2011

[1]      On 2 February 2011 Mr Hopper was issued with an infringement notice by Constable Fruish alleging that he exceeded 80 km per hour on State Highway 17 near Dairy Flat.  The amount of the infringement notice was $80.  Constable Fruish had recorded the appellant travelling at 93 km per hour using a Stalker DSR model radar speed measuring device.

[2]      By  letter  dated  23  March  2011  the  appellant,  through  the  agency  of Mr Dermot  Nottingham,  wrote  to  the  Police  Infringement  Bureau  requesting  a hearing in respect of the alleged offence.  A notice of hearing was duly issued.  The hearing date was set for 17 May 2011 at the North Shore District Court.

[3]      On  that  day  the  matter  was  called  before  two  Justices  of  the  Peace. Mr Hopper did not appear and the Justices, noting the letter from Mr Nottingham, adjourned  the  matter  for  a  defended  hearing.    That  hearing  was  scheduled  for

28 June 2011.  Mr Hopper did not appear on 28 June 2011.  He was overseas.  The Justices of the Peace dealt with the matter in his absence.  Mr Hopper was ordered to pay the $80 infringement notice fee plus $30.67 in court costs.  Mr Hopper appeals against that decision of the Justices of the Peace.

[4]      The threshold matter that Mr Hopper raises is that the Justices of the Peace should not have proceeded against him in his absence.   However, there is a more fundamental matter which has been identified by the respondent.   That is that the Justices of the Peace did not proceed by way of formal proof.  Instead they recorded that they simply “re-imposed” the infringement fee.  As the respondent accepts, that is an irregular procedure.   In effect the Justices of the Peace have found the case against Mr Hopper proved without hearing any evidence of that.

[5]      Under those circumstances I quash the finding by the Justices of the Peace and accordingly set aside the finding that the infringement fee is to be paid and also

the sum for court costs.  I remit the case back to the District Court for rehearing.

Brewer J