Kingsley v Police - [2016] NZHC 1304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-409-000017 [2016] NZHC 1304

BETWEEN
DAVID LUC KINGSLEY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Defendant

Hearing: 14 June 2016

Appearances:

T J Mackenzie for Appellant
AMS Williams for Respondent

Judgment:

16 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] The appellant appeals against both conviction and sentence in the District

Court on one charge of failing to stop and ascertain injury.

Background

[2] On 26 November 2013, the appellant was driving a DAF truck towing a trailer fully laden with vehicles (weighing in excess of 30 tonnes) south on State Highway 1. The appellant entered a moderate left-hand bend and his trailer travelled across the centreline of the roadway. The rear of the appellant’s trailer collided with the side-door mirror of a fuel tanker driven north by the complainant, forcing the mirror back and through the driver’s door window. The complainant was showered with glass. The appellant’s trailer then scraped along the side of the truck,
puncturing the top of the fuel tank.

KINGSLEY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 1304 [16 June 2016]

[3] The appellant initially slowed after the contact but did not stop. He continued to drive for 600 metres at which point he stopped in a rest area some distance away and out of sight of the location of the collision and the other vehicle. Then, the appellant telephoned his employer and after approximately five minutes, decided to continue driving. He did not walk back to the scene of the incident to check on damage to the other vehicle involved or injury to any occupants of that vehicle.

[4] As a result of the accident, the complainant sustained a sprain of the cervical spine, a small laceration to the back of the head and a sprain to his chest and rib. The appellant was subsequently charged with careless driving causing injury and failing to ascertain injury. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of careless driving causing injury. He was disqualified from driving for six months.

[5] The failing to stop and ascertain injury charge went to a defended hearing. In a reserved decision on 15 October 2015, Judge O’Driscoll found the charge proved against the appellant. Judge O’Driscoll then sentenced the appellant to 150 hours’ community work and he imposed a 12 month disqualification period on the appellant backdated to the date of an initial six month disqualification imposed for the careless driving causing injury charge.

Submissions

[6] The following grounds of appeal relating to his conviction are advanced by the appellant here:

(a) The learned judge erred in law by conflating the appellant’s later acquired knowledge of the accident with the appellant’s knowledge at the time in not returning to the accident.

(b)The learned judge was wrong to reject the reasons advanced by the appellant on the basis that they were not advanced at the time of the incident.

(c) The Judge erred in finding that the police had proven that the appellant did not have…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kingsley v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NZHC 1304
Decision Date: 16 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, David Luc Kingsley, appeals against his conviction and sentence in the District Court on the charge of failing to stop and ascertain injury. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Christchurch, with the judgment issued on 16 June 2016. The appellant's primary contention is that the District Court judge erred in law by not considering the appellant's lack of knowledge of the extent of the damage and injury at the time of the incident, which the appellant argues should have been a factor in determining a reasonable excuse for not returning to the scene. Additionally, the appellant challenges the sentence of 150 hours of community work as manifestly excessive.

The court considered the legal issues surrounding the appellant's failure to stop and ascertain injury, focusing on whether the District Court judge correctly assessed the appellant's knowledge and reasonable excuse at the time of the incident. The court also evaluated whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's culpability.

The court found that the appellant's lack of knowledge about the extent of the damage and injury did not negate the statutory duty to stop and ascertain injury, as the purpose of the legislation is to ensure the safety and protection of injured persons. Furthermore, the court held that the District Court judge did not err in rejecting the appellant's post-incident explanations as unreasonable, as they were not advanced at the time of the incident and were self-serving. The court also determined that the sentence of 150 hours of community work was not manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the offence and the appellant's culpability.

Ultimately, the appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed, upholding the District Court's decision.

Orders