J v Police HC Christchurch CRI 2008-409-91

[2008] NZHC 2460

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2008-409-000091

J

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         31 July 2008

Counsel:         Appellant In Person - No Appearance

R M Thomas for Respondent

Judgment:      31 July 2008

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

[1]      The appellant faced an infringement offence, namely that on 27 January 2008 at Christchurch she drove a motor vehicle fitted with a seat belt which she did not wear at the relevant time.   Ms J   was stopped by a traffic officer at about

11.00 am on Kerrs Road, Christchurch.  She was driving a Subaru Legacy.  In order to stop her the officer had executed a u turn after observing the appellant driving towards him without a seat belt on.  After the U turn the officer found the appellant’s vehicle at a nearby intersection.  At that point he observed that she was putting her seat belt on as she waited to proceed through the intersection.

[2]      Evidence to this effect was given before Justices of the Peace in the District

Court on 21 May 2008.  Ms J   appeared in person.  At the outset of the hearing the Justices indicated the procedure.   In particular, she was told that the officer

J V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC CHCH CRI 2008-409-000091  31 July 2008

would first give evidence and that she would have the opportunity to question him. She was also told that she may call witnesses and give evidence in her own defence, but that in this event she, too, would be liable for cross-examination.

[3]      The police constable gave evidence in terms of the outline which I have just given.  He was questioned to some degree by Ms J  .  The questions concerned a copy of the infringement notice and a notebook entry which had been made by the officer.  However, on my reading of the transcript, there was no effective challenge to the officer’s evidence.  Following closure of the informant’s case Ms J   was asked whether she wished to give evidence and the record notes that she elected not to do so.

[4]      The Justices proceeded to give a decision.  They recounted the evidence in support of the informant’s case and added:

Ms J   was given the opportunity to call any witnesses or give evidence herself in the witness box under oath if she wished, she chose not to.

The decision continued:

The evidence of the constable has not been rebutted today.  There has been no sworn evidence rebutting or challenging that evidence.  Ms J   asked that a copy of the notes made by the constable after the incident be made inadmissible as evidence.  The Court has allowed those were not admissible and she had not seen the original. However, this does not negate the fact that there is sworn evidence that Ms J   was not wearing a seatbelt on the time and date of the infringement.  In no way had this been challenged with any other sworn evidence.  For these reasons we find the charge proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

At that point the penalty was imposed being the standard fine of $150 and court costs of $130.

[5]      The appellant then made a comment as follows:

Actually, Your Worships, I feel that I was, I didn’t quite understand the procedure fully, like, this is only my – and I did dispute his evidence because I said that I entered a not guilty plea that disputes his evidence.

[6]      The notice of appeal describes the grounds as “Unfair trial due to lack of understanding basic courtroom procedures”.  There was also a reference to what is

termed “new evidence” being inconsistencies found in the informant’s statement. However, these grounds of appeal have not been advanced by the appellant today. She was given notice of the hearing on 5 June 2008.  Moreover, earlier this week, a copy of the informant'’ submissions in opposition to the appeal were couriered to the appellant'’ home address.   Despite this there has been no appearance today, even after the case was stood down for a short while so that inquiries could be made.  I am satisfied that Ms J   was advised of the hearing but has simply failed to appear.

[7]      There is no basis upon which to allow the appeal against the Justices’ finding. In the first place I am satisfied that the process of the court was well explained to the appellant at the outset.  The so-called new evidence ground of appeal has not been explained and it is difficult indeed to see what it might entail.

[8]      The matter is further compounded by the circumstance that in response to the original infringement notice the appellant wrote a letter to the Infringement Bureau on or about 18 March 2008.  This contained her then version of events.  In essence what she said was that she was wearing her seatbelt at the relevant time.   She claimed the officer was told this when he spoke to her.   Moreover, Ms J   maintained that she said to the officer “Did he notice the other silver Subaru Legacy similar to mine, two cars in front of me at the time he pulled me over?”  Hence the suggested defence was one of mistaken identity;  that the officer had confused Ms J  ’s car and another one of similar description.  Yet, nothing to this effect was put to the officer in the course of cross-examination.

[9]      I mention this aspect because it adds somewhat to the mystery.  For present purposes the fact is that there was ample evidence in support of the informant’s case and the Justices reached a decision squarely based on that evidence.

[10]     There  is  no  basis  for  the  intervention  of  this  Court  and  the  appeal  is dismissed.

Solicitors:

Appellant - Ms M J  , 22 Willryan Avenue, New Brighton, Christchurch 8083.

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch for Respondent