Johnson v Police - [2022] NZHC 266

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-409-143

[2022] NZHC 266

BETWEEN
JACOB TYLER JOHNSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 February 2022

Appearances:

A J Bailey for Appellant

J H Whitcombe for Crown

Judgment:

24 February 2022

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 February 2022 at 11 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: .

JOHNSON v POLICE [2022] NZHC 266 [24 February 2022]

[1] Following a Judge-alone trial in the Christchurch District Court, Mr Jacob Johnson was found guilty by Judge Large of a charge of dangerous driving.1 He appeals his conviction on the grounds the evidence was insufficient to prove any fault on his part had caused him to drive dangerously and the Judge misdirected himself as to the applicable law. Those errors, it was submitted, resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Facts

[2] Around 4 am on 3 October 2020, Mr Johnson crashed his motor vehicle through a fence and into a paddock after failing to stop at a T-intersection. His vehicle carried on through the junction, crashed through a gate, and collided with a tree. The vehicle’s speed at the time of the crash was estimated to be 60 kph, and the impact caused the tree to penetrate about halfway into the engine bay. Mr Johnson was not wearing a seat belt. His head impacted with the windscreen and he received large, deep lacerations to both knees as a result of contact with the dashboard.

[3] After Mr Johnson exited the vehicle, he called emergency services. The attending paramedic described Mr Johnson as confused, with no recall of the crash. He was observed as appearing to be under the influence of alcohol or other substances, with slurred speech and dilated pupils. A blood sample taken from Mr Johnson showed that he had MDMA and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in his system.

[4] Over a month after the crash, Mr Johnson was interviewed by police. He told them that he did not smoke cannabis, and suggested the THC in his blood must have come from second-hand smoke. However, he admitted consuming MDMA, although he was unable to tell police when he took it or in what quantity. Mr Johnson stated he was driving from Woodend to Ohoka and that he could not recall how he ended up on the road where he crashed. He did, however, remember waking up from sleep a split second before hitting the tree.

1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b).

[5] Evidence was adduced that the crash site in Swannanoa was some three to four kilometres away from any route involving a trip from Woodend to Ohoka, which would not require travelling through Swannanoa.

District Court decision

[6] Much of the evidence adduced before the District Court was not in dispute. It was accepted that Mr Johnson was the driver of the motor vehicle that had driven straight…

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 Johnson v Police

Details

AGLC: Johnson v Police [2022] NZHC 266
Case: [2022] NZHC 266
Decision Date: 24 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the appellant, Jacob Tyler Johnson, appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, which was determined by the Christchurch District Court. The key issues for the Court were whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Johnson's fault and if the District Court judge misdirected himself in relation to the applicable law. Johnson argued that the evidence did not sufficiently prove his fault in causing dangerous driving and that the District Court judge had misapplied the legal standards. The Court needed to decide if the evidence was sufficient to prove Johnson's fault and if the judge's interpretation of the law was correct.

The Court found that while the standard of a "reasonable and competent driver" was cited by the District Court judge, the correct test should have been that of a "competent and experienced driver." However, the Court concluded that this difference did not significantly affect the outcome of the case. The Court also determined that mere consumption of MDMA does not automatically make driving dangerous; rather, it must be shown that the drug caused the driver to fall asleep or be otherwise impaired. The Court found that the District Court judge erred in concluding that Johnson's consumption of MDMA caused him to fall asleep without sufficient evidence. The judge's reliance on Johnson's condition immediately after the crash and the fact that he was found far from his intended route was insufficient to establish a causal link between his drug consumption and dangerous driving.

The Court concluded that the judge's reasoning led to a miscarriage of justice, and Johnson's conviction for dangerous driving was quashed. The Court decided not to substitute a different conviction due to the lack of notice to Johnson and the potential need for medical or expert evidence. Instead, the Court directed an acquittal and made no order for a new trial, considering the time elapsed since the incident and the absence of any other persons involved in the crash.

Orders