K v Police HC Auckland Cri-2005-404-152

[2005] NZHC 34

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2005-404-000152

BETWEEN    K             Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         12 September 2005

Appearances: No appearance by or on behalf of Appellant

Steve Symon for Respondent

Judgment:      12 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF HARRISON J

SOLICITORS

Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent

Copy to: Mr Z K     , 8/19 Locarno Avenue, Mt Albert, Auckland

K V POLICE HC AK CRI-2005-404-000152  12 September 2005

[1]      On  3  May  2005  Mr      K       filed  a  notice  of  appeal  against  his conviction in the District Court at Auckland on 7 April 2005 on one charge of failing to stop at a red traffic light at the intersection of Parnell Rise and Stanley Street.

[2]      The registry gave Mr K      notice that the appeal would be heard at 10 a.m. today.  A note on the file indicates that Mr K      gave verbal notice to the registry of his intention to appear today.  However, he failed to file any submissions and did not answer when the appeal was called at 10 a.m. and again at 10.20 a.m.  I am satisfied that he does not intend to appear.

[3]      Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal.  I note that it was an exercise in futility.  In an  oral  decision,  commendable  for  its  clarity,  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  found Mr K      guilty on the basis of their acceptance of the evidence of a police officer who  observed  Mr K       drive  through  the  red  light.    This  result  was  hardly surprising.   Mr K     , who  appeared for  himself in  the District  Court,  failed  to challenge the officer in cross-examination.  Furthermore, the Justices of the Peace had the inestimable benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses.   They clearly accepted the police officer’s account and rejected Mr K     ’s evidence.

[4]      An  appeal  is  not  a  forum  for  rehearsing  or  repeating  the  same  factual evidence traversed in the District Court.   To succeed Mr K      would have had to establish that the Justices made a material error of fact or law.  His notice of appeal fails to satisfy that requirement.   It is no more than a further protestation of his innocence and a view that the result was unjust.

[5]      In view of my conclusion that this appeal was hopeless from its inception, I

order Mr K      to pay costs to the Crown on the appeal of $150 under the Costs in

Criminal Cases Act 1967.

Rhys Harrison J