K v Police HC Timaru Cri-2008-476-5

[2008] NZHC 1034

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI-2008-476-000005

K

Appellant

v

POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         3 July 2008

Appearances: Appellant in Person

K B Bell for Crown

Judgment:      3 July 2008

ORAL JUDGMENT OF HON. JUSTICE FRENCH

[1]      This is an appeal against conviction.

[2]       The appellant, Mr K  , was convicted by Justices of the Peace on 20 March

2008 of a charge of exceeding the speed limit.

[3]      The conviction followed a hearing at which Mr K   elected not to appear. Instead of appearing at the hearing, he wrote a letter to the Court.

[4]      At the hearing, evidence was given by a police officer who testified that, using an approved speed detection device, he had recorded the appellant driving a

motor vehicle in Palmerston at a speed of 68 kilometres per hour in a 50 kilometre

K V POLICE HC TIM CRI-2008-476-000005  3 July 2008

per hour area.  It is clear from the transcript of the evidence that the Justices of the Peace had read Mr K  ’s letter, and in fact during the course of the officer’s examination-in-chief he was asked to comment on the submissions Mr K   had provided.

[5]      In appealing his conviction, Mr K   has advanced a number of matters. They are as follows:

1.      The appellant contends that the officer’s evidence contained nothing substantial as to the operation of the Stalker DSR speed detection unit. Oral evidence only was given and nothing was said by the officer regarding the capable distance range of the device.

The appellant believes that the range of the device is much further than the 800 metres up to the 50 kph sign referred to in the officer’s evidence

and that the first reading was taken when the vehicle was in the 70kph zone.  This would breach the police policy of not operating speed

detection devices within 250 metres of a change of speed sign.

2.      Hard copy evidence as to the operation of the speed detection device was not provided to the appellant when requested.

3.      The appellant believes that due weight was not given by the Justices to the written submissions made by the appellant to the Court.

4.      The Justices failed to give reasons for their decision.

5.      The normal evidential tests were not applied by the Justices.

6.      The appellant believes that it is not in the public interest that speed detection devices are operated in close proximity to change of speed zones.  In such situations there is an enhanced opportunity for human error to occur, such as, the appellant believes, has occurred in this case.

7.      The appellant further contends that it is in the public interest to uphold this appeal.

[6]      I am not satisfied that any of the grounds advanced are meritorious.

[7]      In so far as Mr K   is purporting to challenge and relitigate issues of fact, I find  there was sufficient evidence before the Justices of the Peace to justify the entry of a conviction.  It is not open to Mr K   now to try and argue on appeal he was outside the 50 kilometre per hour zone at the time his speed was recorded when sworn testimony to the contrary was given and obviously accepted at the hearing.

[8]      Arguments about the public interest also do not constitute grounds warranting the overturning of the decision.

[9]      In his appeal, Mr K   has also relied on the fact the Justices did not give reasons for their decision.  However, this was essentially to all intents and purposes a situation of formal proof, and in the circumstances I do not consider a failure to give reasons could be grounds warranting appellate intervention.

[10]     The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Christchurch

Copy to Appellant