Jackson v Police - [2017] NZHC 37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-409-000093 [2017] NZHC 37

BETWEEN
TIMOTHY JOHN JACKSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: (On the papers)

Appearances:

Appellant in person
B Hawes for Respondent

Judgment:

26 January 2017

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Mr Timothy Jackson appeals his conviction under s 35(1)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1952 for driving a motor vehicle on a road at a speed which, having regard to the circumstances of the case, might have been dangerous to the public.

[2] Mr Jackson has advanced the following three grounds of appeal:

(a) there was insufficient evidence of identity of the motor cycle depicted in the photograph taken by the speed camera and formally produced in evidence, and

(b)the evidence of Senior Constable Douglas Jackson who spoke to, and photographed, the appellant at the BP petrol station in Kaikoura, was improperly obtained and therefore inadmissible; and

(c) even if the Court is satisfied with the identity evidence, there was insufficient evidence to convict the appellant of dangerous driving.

JACKSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 37 [26 January 2017]

[3] A further issue has arisen since the appeal was filed and that is, because of an unexpected technical problem, there is no recording of the hearing available for transcription. The District Court Judge has provided his own notes of the hearing but they are, understandably, not a complete record of the hearing. The appellant says this alone warrants a rehearing, but that is disputed by the respondent. I consider this issue after I discuss the main grounds of appeal, as the need for a rehearing based on the lack of a record of the hearing will turn on whether there is a material dispute over what occurred during the hearing which could affect the outcome of the appeal.

Background

[3] On Sunday 20 December 2015, a police speed camera vehicle was operating a speed camera site, in an 80 kilometre per hour area on State Highway 1, south of Kaikoura. The vehicle was parked about 200 metres south of the Omihi Camping Ground, near Oraro.

[4] At 1.46 pm, a motorcycle was checked travelling at 145 kilometres per hour as it was heading north towards Kaikoura. In the District Court, Judge Saunders was satisfied that the speed camera operator, Mr Hoskins, was able to read the registration number on the computer screen and transmit it to a duty officer, Constable Douglas Jackson. Constable Jackson noted the registration number in his notebook and commenced enquiries by visiting likely stopping points in Kaikoura.

[5] At 2.06 pm, the Constable found the appellant at the BP station with the motorcycle carrying the registration details he had been provided with. When questioned about the alleged speeding, the appellant explained “I must have been passing someone”. Constable Jackson then took a statement from the appellant and photographed the appellant’s motorcycle and his attire. The Constable then drew the appellant’s attention to defects on the motorcycle, one of which related to…

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.

Continue reading Jackson v Police

Details

AGLC: Jackson v Police [2017] NZHC 37
Case: [2017] NZHC 37
Decision Date: 26 January 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Jackson v Police, Timothy John Jackson appealed his conviction for dangerous driving under s 35(1)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1952. The District Court Judge had convicted Jackson based on evidence from a speed camera photograph, testimony from Constable Douglas Jackson, and the circumstances of the offence. Jackson argued that there was insufficient evidence of identity of the motorcycle depicted in the photograph, that Constable Jackson's evidence was improperly obtained and therefore inadmissible, and that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of dangerous driving. A further issue arose due to an unexpected technical problem that resulted in no recording of the hearing available for transcription.

The court considered the grounds of appeal in turn. In relation to the sufficiency of identity evidence, the court held that even without the second image, the photograph produced in the photograph booklet, combined with the evidence provided by the two prosecution witnesses, was sufficient to identify the rider as Jackson. Furthermore, the court found that Constable Jackson's interaction with Jackson at the Kaikoura BP service station was not an unlawful detention, as the officer had the power to detain the driver of a motor vehicle while he established the identity of Jackson and inspected the motorcycle for any defects. Finally, the court held that the circumstances of the offending justified a finding of dangerous driving, as the judge was entitled to take into account risk factors present in the area at the time and whether driving at that speed, in that environment, reached a threshold of being dangerous.

The court dismissed the appeal and lifted the stay of enforcement. The period of disqualification was to commence at 12.00 am on 27 January 2017.

Orders