J v Police HC Wellington CRI 2010-485-90

[2010] NZHC 1780

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2010-485-90

J

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         5 October 2010

Counsel:         Appellant in Person

A Ewing for Respondent

Judgment:      6 October 2010

JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J (Appeal against conviction)

Introduction

[1]      Mr J   appeals against the Justices of the Peace finding that he was driving 63 kph in a 50 kph zone.  As a result they convicted him of driving in excess of 50 kph in a 50 kph zone.  Mr J   variously alleges that he was not exceeding

50 kph or that he was not doing more than 54 kph at the relevant time.   Despite

notification from the Court he filed no submissions prior to the hearing.

J V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI 2010-485-90  6 October 2010

[2]      Mr J   claimed that the police officer’s evidence as to speed was false and that the radar which allegedly identified his speed only noted his  speed at

54 kph.  However he denied ever exceeding 50 kph.

Background facts

[3]      On 28 June 2009 Constable Barraclough was on duty in a marked police car. Prior to going out on the road he had tested his speeding enforcement equipment. During the course of the day he was using what is called a “Stalker Dual radar speed detector”.  At the time the machine had a certificate of accuracy.

[4]      On Aro Street at about 2.25 p.m. he saw a vehicle travelling towards him.  It was an older model white Honda sedan.   He used the radar and as the vehicle travelled within the distance of the radar it showed the vehicle was dong 63 kph.  He said there were no other vehicles in the area.

[5]      The Constable pulled over the vehicle and identified the appellant as the driver.  He told the driver of the speed reading and asked if the driver would like to review this speed on the radar.  He said that Mr J   said he did not want to do so.    The  Constable  then  issued  a  ticket  for  exceeding 50 kph  and  handed  it  to Mr J  .

[6]      At trial Mr J   gave evidence.   He denied that he had been travelling over 50 kph on the occasion when the police officer alleged.  He said he was doing about 40 kph when he saw the police officer and slowing down.  The appellant said that the police officer had told him that he was doing 54 kph not 63 kph.

[7]      It was suggested in cross-examination to Mr J   that he had been given an infringement notice that said he was doing 63 kph.   Mr J   said that the notice recorded his speed at 54 kph.   When shown the infringement notice which said  his  speed  was  63 kph  he  said  the  infringement  notice  was  a  phoney. Mr J   denied that the officer had offered to show him the radar reading but he claimed that he had asked the officer to have a look at the radar.  He said the radar

showed 54 kph and not 63 kph but Mr J   said immediately after, in answer to a question, that the police constable would not show him the radar.

Discussion

[8]      To return to the appeal.  Mr J   in his notice of general appeal said that he strongly denied that he was travelling over 50 kph on that day and denied that he was travelling at 63 kph.  He repeated that in submissions before me.

[9]      In   their   decision   Justices   of   the   Peace   preferred   the   evidence   of Constable Barraclough to Mr J  .  They were satisfied that the Constable had accurately described the reading from the speed radar.  They rejected Mr J  ’s evidence.

[10]     The  Justices  of  the  Peace  were  entitled  to  prefer  the  evidence  of  the Constable particularly in the circumstances.   The Constable has not moved in the face of difficult cross-examination.  It was clear that immediately after the event he handed  Mr J    a  ticket  which  said  his  speed  was  63 kph.    In  contrast  the transcript shows Mr J   highly emotional, aggressive and inconsistent.   For example, at the end of the evidence it was not clear whether Mr J   claimed he had or had not seen the radar reading.  He initially asserted he had seen the radar and it showed 54 not 63 kph.  However he then denied he had seen the radar because the Constable would not show him.  There was ample evidence upon which the Justices of the Peace could convict Mr J   and no error of law or facts has been shown.

[11]     The appeal is dismissed.

Ronald Young J

Solicitors:

M R J  , 37 Strathmore Avenue, Strathmore, Wellington
A Ewing, Luke Cunningham & Clere, PO Box 10357, Wellington, email: [email protected]